Advocacy in nursing: A critical analysis of professional nursing’s response in Canada and the United States to the genocide of Palestinians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we analyse the response of professional nursing in Canada and the United States to the ongoing genocide occurring in Gaza. We do this by contextualizing the nursing profession’s ties to settler-colonialism in Canada. Employing frameworks of settler-colonialism and necropolitics, we interrogate the Israeli occupation’s systematic destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system or medicide , and the pre-existing healthcare disparities. Through the framework of epistemic disobedience we analyse two case studies: the politically motivated firing of nurse Hesen Jabr by New York’s Langone hospital and the politically motivated suspension of student nurse Arij Al Khafagi at the University of Manitoba. Both were disciplined for speaking out against the genocide of Palestinians. Finally, we offer a critical perspective on nursing advocacy, contrasting the response by professional nursing to the war in Ukraine and the genocide in Gaza. We contend that genuine advocacy is both an ethical duty and a basic nursing competency. It requires risk-taking by challenging the status quo on an individual, interpersonal and institutional level. We advocate for nursing organizations and nursing leaders to loosen their grip on the privileges of White supremacy in order to engage in politics to protect and support all people facing war and calamity, even if there is risk in doing so.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".