Stakeholder #1

The major stakeholder of my controversy is definitely Nina Pham herself. It's her lawsuit, so it only makes sense to describe her as the first.

• Nina Pham is a 26 year old RN who worked at Texas Health Presbyterian in Dallas, Texas. She is a pretty, Vietnamese, young woman with a beautiful smile. Her hair is long and dark, with a blonde ombré at the ends. Many of the pictures available of her are her looking well dressed in cute, feminine suits, meeting the president and speaking formally in front of many people. From what I can see, she is short and it looks like she likes wearing big, statement necklaces. Every time she talks it is interviews or in front of crowds, she comes off as a bit nervous but very sweet. There are many pictures of her meeting and hugging Obama, where she appears to be happy and comfortable. She might just be afraid of public speaking. In a video that was taken of her in the hospital (without permission) she is quiet but still jokes around with the doctors and tries to lighten the mood. She seems like a very sweet girl who was put into a horrible situation.

Souza, Pete. "Barack Obama Hugs Nina Pham."10/24/2014 via WikiMedia Commons. Public Domain License. 

• Nina's claims:
• 1) Texas Health Presbyterian was not prepared to handle Ebola, and the nurses (including herself) had to pay for it. Nina's direct quote is as follows, "It (the lawsuit) will uncover the truth of what happened, and educate all health providers and administrators about ways to be better prepared for the next public health emergency," (ABC News).


• 2) Texas Health violated Nina's privacy by releasing her name when she was diagnosed with Ebola, and later a video of her while she was quarantined. "They had just a PR nightmare with what happened with Mr. Duncan... and then us being infected with Ebola. Not just one nurse, but two... People lost faith in them, especially after we got sick," (Dallas Morning News).
• 3) Texas Health neglected Nina's own health and now she faces many health issues."I don't know if having children could be affected by this, but that's something I worry about... Just the uncertainty of it all. And if I do have health problems in the future, is it related to Ebola or is it something else?," (Dallas Morning News).

How credible are her claims?

• I think that Nina's first claim is the most credible and holds the most weight. There is a lot of evidence to support that the hospital was not ready to receive an Ebola patient, and Nina and the nurses were put in an unfair position by being assigned Duncan. They reported not having the correct equipment or training, only reaching a Google printout as guidance, and having to deal with medical waste and cleaning all by themselves. She is able to cite many instances of not being prepared by the hospital. 
• Nina's second claim is also very credible. She simply asked for her name to be released as Jane Doe, and her request was denied. She wasn't aware that she was being recorded in her hospital room, but the video was released anyway. Nina's privacy was obviously breached. 
• Her third claim is the hardest to back up. She is essentially looking for compensation for emotional and physical trauma, but how can that be supported? Yes, she was given experimental drugs but she recovered. The hospital did everything they could to heal her, and that came with consequences. The emotional consequences she faced (emotional trauma about going back to be a RN, her boyfriend leaving her, lack of social life, etc..) are more subjective and will most likely not stand in the court. There was also an issue of who Nina's official employer was; Texas Health Resources or Texas Health Presbyterian. This is an issue because whoever it is decided is her official employer, is who the work compensation side of the suit will fall to. 

How are these claims similar/different to other stakeholders?

• Nina's first claim is the most similar to what other nurses and health care providers have to gain or lose from this lawsuit. Nurses are clearly on Nina's side, because further education in emergency protocol will benefit them in the future. I also feel that this claim has a great deal to do with the respect that nurses yearn for and may earn if Nina wins this lawsuit; this is where this claim is very different from THR's (another stakeholder). THR was quick to say that Nina must've done something wrong to break protocol, and blame her for how she contracted the disease. If Nina were to win, the blame would fall on THR and Nina's competence would not be in question- which really benefits nurses everywhere. 
• Nina's second claim is potentially very detrimental to THR. THR wants to claim that they did not invade Nina's privacy, but if it is proven that they did, it's just another scandal to add to a bad reputation.
• Nina's third claim affects THR/ Texas Presbyterian. Obviously, if she wins compensation they will have to pay her quite a settlement. This is perhaps the most neutral claim because huge organizations won't suffer too badly from having to pay Nina. It really has more to do with saving these organizations' reputation. 

What do you all think about Nina's claims?