- Email: [email protected]
From policy to privacy—A perilous passage
From Policy to Privacy-A
0
N JULY 6, 1992, Margarethe Cammermeyer-a nurse, decorated Vietnam veteran, and colonel in the United States Army-made it into Time. Among other things, Time noted that Colonel Cammermeyer had been awarded the Bronze Star, was named Veterans Administration Nurse of the Year, and had served as chief nurse of the Washington State National Guard for 3 years. But, these are not the reasons that she was featured in the Time interview. She was interviewed because she answered “yes” when asked a routine question as part of a security background check related to her application for admission to the Army War College. The question and her answer would in all likelihood end her acknowledged distinguished career in the US armed services. When asked if she was a homosexual, she told the truth. She said “yes” and began her long ordeal to challenge the US armed services’ policy of exclusion, or discharge, of known homosexuals. Because she had put in more than the requisite 20 years, Colonel Cammermeyer could have answered “no” or quietly resigned or retired. She told the truth for a simple and honorable reason-to lie was inconsistent with the top secret clearance she sought. She did it in public because she believed that it would be more difficult for the army to defend its policy of exclusion of homosexuals in the face of her recognized distinguished achievements while serving as an officer for over a quarter century, certainly more difficult than simply denying young untried people the opportunity to serve because of their sexual orientation. And, she spoke out at great personal risk in a manner that is without animosity toward the individuals who she says had no choice but to invoke the existing policy against her, but that is compelling in its insistence that the policy must change and that privacy and tolerance of diversity is essential for a healthy and productive armed services organization
JUDITH KRAUSS, RN,
MSN
Dean and Profeessor SchooLof Nursing Yale University
25 Park St. PO Box 9740 New Haven, CT 06J36
Copyright 0 1992 by W.B. Saunders Company 8755-7223/92/0806-0001$03.00/0
Journal of Professional Nursing,
Perilous Passage
You might find all of this as compelling as I do, or you might be appalled that I am using the Public Policy column in the journal as a soap box for this issue. After all, what does it have to do with health policy? The fact that Colonel Cammermeyer is a nurse certainly got my attention. Were she not, I might have missed the health policy implications of the armed services’ exclusion of homosexuals. Such a policy reaches deep into privacy matters and in so doing excludes through sexual preference bias individuals who could and would deliver high quality health care to a large segment of the American population who receive such care through armed services affiliation. The reach of this policy is doubtless long enough to have discouraged some individuals from ever entering the nursing profession or other health care professions in the first place. Consider that the US armed services routinely recruit people with the promise of scholarship support, education, and training in their chosen fields. And, this policy has undoubtedly caused many capable and caring nurses and health care professionals to operate under the added burden of discovery, exposure, and discharge because of their sexual orientation, which should have no more bearing on their capacity to practice than their race, creed, or gender, all of which are constitutionally protected from discrimination. Nurses and nursing organizations should not let Margarethe Cammermeyer slip into the oblivion of old news or personal tragedies. Whenever policy and privacy clash, the outcomes can be perilous for the whole system. It is time for organizations and schools of nursing to speak up on this issue through our own policies. We would not think of accepting advertisements or allowing recruiters on campus who come from organizations that openly discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, or religion. It is time to consider similar sanctions against organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Nurses should be gravely concerned about invasion of privacy and the insidious effect it has on the human condition. As Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer has shown us, policies speak louder than words. Lamenting her plight is not enough. Admiring her courage and willingness to follow the perilous path of public exposure is too private. In short, the US armed services has opted for a health care system which, through the cancer of bias, discrimination, and exclusion, is itself in need of a cure. Colonel Cammermeyer has taken the first step in diagnosing the problem. It is up to us to treat it.
Vol 8, No 6 (November-December),
1992:
p 3 17
317
0
N JULY 6, 1992, Margarethe Cammermeyer-a nurse, decorated Vietnam veteran, and colonel in the United States Army-made it into Time. Among other things, Time noted that Colonel Cammermeyer had been awarded the Bronze Star, was named Veterans Administration Nurse of the Year, and had served as chief nurse of the Washington State National Guard for 3 years. But, these are not the reasons that she was featured in the Time interview. She was interviewed because she answered “yes” when asked a routine question as part of a security background check related to her application for admission to the Army War College. The question and her answer would in all likelihood end her acknowledged distinguished career in the US armed services. When asked if she was a homosexual, she told the truth. She said “yes” and began her long ordeal to challenge the US armed services’ policy of exclusion, or discharge, of known homosexuals. Because she had put in more than the requisite 20 years, Colonel Cammermeyer could have answered “no” or quietly resigned or retired. She told the truth for a simple and honorable reason-to lie was inconsistent with the top secret clearance she sought. She did it in public because she believed that it would be more difficult for the army to defend its policy of exclusion of homosexuals in the face of her recognized distinguished achievements while serving as an officer for over a quarter century, certainly more difficult than simply denying young untried people the opportunity to serve because of their sexual orientation. And, she spoke out at great personal risk in a manner that is without animosity toward the individuals who she says had no choice but to invoke the existing policy against her, but that is compelling in its insistence that the policy must change and that privacy and tolerance of diversity is essential for a healthy and productive armed services organization
JUDITH KRAUSS, RN,
MSN
Dean and Profeessor SchooLof Nursing Yale University
25 Park St. PO Box 9740 New Haven, CT 06J36
Copyright 0 1992 by W.B. Saunders Company 8755-7223/92/0806-0001$03.00/0
Journal of Professional Nursing,
Perilous Passage
You might find all of this as compelling as I do, or you might be appalled that I am using the Public Policy column in the journal as a soap box for this issue. After all, what does it have to do with health policy? The fact that Colonel Cammermeyer is a nurse certainly got my attention. Were she not, I might have missed the health policy implications of the armed services’ exclusion of homosexuals. Such a policy reaches deep into privacy matters and in so doing excludes through sexual preference bias individuals who could and would deliver high quality health care to a large segment of the American population who receive such care through armed services affiliation. The reach of this policy is doubtless long enough to have discouraged some individuals from ever entering the nursing profession or other health care professions in the first place. Consider that the US armed services routinely recruit people with the promise of scholarship support, education, and training in their chosen fields. And, this policy has undoubtedly caused many capable and caring nurses and health care professionals to operate under the added burden of discovery, exposure, and discharge because of their sexual orientation, which should have no more bearing on their capacity to practice than their race, creed, or gender, all of which are constitutionally protected from discrimination. Nurses and nursing organizations should not let Margarethe Cammermeyer slip into the oblivion of old news or personal tragedies. Whenever policy and privacy clash, the outcomes can be perilous for the whole system. It is time for organizations and schools of nursing to speak up on this issue through our own policies. We would not think of accepting advertisements or allowing recruiters on campus who come from organizations that openly discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, or religion. It is time to consider similar sanctions against organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Nurses should be gravely concerned about invasion of privacy and the insidious effect it has on the human condition. As Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer has shown us, policies speak louder than words. Lamenting her plight is not enough. Admiring her courage and willingness to follow the perilous path of public exposure is too private. In short, the US armed services has opted for a health care system which, through the cancer of bias, discrimination, and exclusion, is itself in need of a cure. Colonel Cammermeyer has taken the first step in diagnosing the problem. It is up to us to treat it.
Vol 8, No 6 (November-December),
1992:
p 3 17
317