Stakeholder #3

My second stakeholder(s) are the nurses involved at Texas Health, as well as nurses across the country. This is the least obvious stakeholder, but Nina released several statements wanting to help protect future health care providers from what she experienced.

Stoneburner, Walt. "Nurse." 3/7/2009
via Flickr. Creative Commons License.

• This is probably the most difficult stakeholder to describe. The nurses that Nina worked with are never mentioned by name (except for Amber Vinson, the other nurse who contracted Ebola from Texas Health Presbyterian), so we can only imagine them as group of nurses who were just as confused and overwhelmed as Nina was. Nurses across the country are included as stakeholders because Nina expressed that she hoped that her case would lead to the truth of how unprepared the nurses were, and action would be taken to prevent this from happening to any nurse ever again.

• The Nurses claims:
• 1) They believe that nurses nationwide should receive more training for these emergency situations. 
• 2) They agree with Nina that they were not prepared to take on an Ebola patient
• 3) They stand with Nina and her lawyer that the statement release by Dr. Daniel Varga was false.

How valid are the claims?

• This is the most vague stakeholder, and therefore the most vague claims. It's hard to make present their claims as completely valid, especially because Nina herself acted as their main voice. The first claim is most likely valid because other sources have mentioned this as an issue for nurses everywhere. They feel that they are not trained or equipped to handle certain situations, but their role as a caretaker obligates them to the best they can. This is unfair to the nurses and puts them at a high risk. 
• The second claim is valid because that is simply what the nurses have said. They all agreed that they were not prepared to treat Thomas Duncan and Texas Health Presbyterian failed to help them.
• The third claim goes along with the second. Dr. Daniel Varga later released a statement that the nurses were given all the equipment that protocol calls for, which is simply a false claim. He released the claim as an attempt to clear THR's reputation a bit and Nina and the nurses were outraged. They were forced to create their own protective gear and Varga still went ahead and released blatant lies. This is incredibly disrespectful to the nurses and Nina who were put in danger.

How similar/different are the claims to other stakeholders?

• All three of the nurses' claims correlate with Nina's. She was their spokesman through the whole lawsuit, so it makes sense that their interests would intersect. The only thing Nina may have failed to do is to present all the claims that the nurses deserved, but I believe that she covered the major issues.
• All three of the nurses' claims opposed THR's claims, except perhaps the first one. THR never expressed that they thought nurses across the nation are well trained to deal with the different kind of emergencies that they could face, but this was never a question that was presented to them. 

From what I read on the Reddit post forums, nurses already have to deal with a lot on the daily. Can you imagine not even receiving the information and equipment they need to keep themselves safe?