Advanced Practice Nursing and Health Care

¶ … New York Times describes how R.J. Reynolds Tobacco was found guilty of breaking its agreement to market cigarette products only to adults. The judge found that the company had pursued an advertising strategy aimed at promoting youth smoking. Important to the ruling, is the judges decision that 'actions speak louder than words' with it being reported that "the judge ruled that 'it does not matter' whether Reynolds intended to single out children and get them to smoke.

The fact that it did not adopt 'reasonable measures' to shield young people from its advertisements represented a breach of the company's responsibility to help reduce youth smoking" (Winter). It is also reported that Reynolds is not the only company accused of specifically targeting young people, a snuff making company is also accused of the same thing. These issues have several significant implications on nursing practitioners, health practices and on health care.

Firstly, from the advertising directed at young people, it can be expected that young people will be effected and are at risk of being influenced by the advertising. While the case shows that Reynold's were found guilty and fined for their advertising, this does not mean that the advertising will not continue. This has major healthcare implications. The young people targeted in such campaigns may be easily convinced and not have the maturity to resist the campaigns.

Considering the addictive nature of cigarettes, these young people may find themselves addicted before they are mature enough to realise their mistake. This leads to a situation where more of the population is smoking. For the healthcare practitioner, this means they will come into greater contact with smokers and smoker-related health problems. The nursing practitioner will be required to treat these problems as well as to assist with anti-smoking programs and provide information and support.

It is also important that the nurse practitioner be aware that young children may become victims of advertising campaigns. The health practice may take on a role in informing parents that their children may be exposed to smoking earlier than they anticipated. This may allow parents to take action to prevent their children becoming smokers. The article also showed that cigarettes are not the only product being marketed to youth, with snuff products another.

The practice and nursing staff can be aware that youth may be involved with these products and look for signs of use in patients. Action can then be taken designed to educate youth about the dangers of such products. The other important thing about the ruling is the judge's ruling that Reynolds did not take reasonable measures to prevent young people from seeing its advertisements. This ruling has possible implications for nursing practitioners and practices.

This ruling sets a precedent where not doing anything to prevent a problem is as important as doing something on purpose. There is the possibility that this could be applied to other situations. For example, a practice not noticing that a youth is a smoker could be as liable as a practice that encourages a youth to smoke. The focus the case has shows that reasonable action must be taken to prevent something.

It is also possible that a nursing practitioner could become liable if young patients see her smoking as she is a supposed example of good health care. This also extends to situations beyond the issue of smoking, where anything the practice or practitioner does not do that results in a problem, is something they can be liable for. The case effectively puts the emphasis on the practice and the nursing practitioner to examine all their actions and decide if they could be doing more to prevent problems. In summary,.