In this article I will introduce and outline the concept of resistance as it relates to health and healthcare. Starting with a number of examples of action, I will then turn to the broader literature to discuss some conventional definitions and related concepts, outlining debates, controversies and limitations related to conceptualizing resistance. I conceptualize resistance broadly, as any act, performed by any individual (or collective) acting as or explicitly identifying as a healthcare professional, that is a response to power, most (...) often in opposition to contentious, harmful or unjust rules, practices, policies or structures. Practically this could account for any public action, marches, sit‐ins and civil disobedience, but also forms of ‘everyday resistance’, such as working slowly, feigning sickness, or even providing care for marginalized groups that would otherwise not have access. Such action could go unrecognized by those in power and perhaps more contentiously, those resisting needn’t even recognize their actions as resistance. I will then apply this conceptualization to explain action that has been undertaken by healthcare professionals, identifying its key features. I will briefly discuss future directions for inquiry that appear particularly pressing. These including ongoing conceptual development, identifying the functions of resistance in health and healthcare along with what makes it distinct from healthcare as usual and other forms of resistance and finally, the range of normative questions resistance raises. (shrink)

While strike action has been common since the industrial revolution, it often invokes a passionate and polarising response, from the strikers themselves, from employers, governments and the general public. Support or lack thereof from health workers and the general public is an important consideration in the justification of strike action. This systematic review sought to examine the impact of strike action on patient and clinician attitudes, specifically to explore (1) patient and health worker support for strike action and (2) the (...) predictors for supporting strike action and the reasons given for engaging in strike action. A systematic scoping review was employed to identify all relevant literature, followed by a textual narrative synthesis. A total of 34 studies met inclusion criteria. Support for strike action was largely context‐dependent. A range of factors impact support for strike action; broader cultural and structural factors, such as unionisation and general acceptance of strike action; systemic factors, such as the nature of the healthcare system, including infrastructure and work conditions; the strike itself and a range of individual factors, the most notable of which was being a student or in an early career stage. There were also some surprising results, for example, during doctors strike, nurses were provided with the opportunity to expand their role, which led to greater professional autonomy and job satisfaction. (shrink)

Strike action in healthcare has been a common global phenomenon. As such action is designed to be disruptive, it creates substantial ethical tension, the most cited of which relates to patient harm, that is, a strike may not only disrupt an employer, but it could also have serious implications for the delivery of care. This article systematically reviewed the literature on strike action in healthcare with the aim of providing an overview of the major justifications for strike action, identifying relative (...) strengths and shortcomings of this literature and providing direction for future discussions, and theoretical and empirical research. Three major themes emerged related to (1) the relationship between healthcare workers, patients and society; (2) the consequences of strike action; and (3) the conduct of strike action. Those who argue against strike action generally cite the harms of such action, particularly as it relates to patients. Many also argue that healthcare workers, because of their skills and position in society, have a special obligation to their patients and society more generally. Those who see this action as not only permissible but also, in some cases, necessary have advanced several points in response, arguing that healthcare workers do not necessarily have any special obligation to their patients or society, and even if so, this obligation is not absolute. Overwhelmingly, when talking about the potential risks of strike action, authors have focused on patient welfare and the impact that a strike could have. Several directions for future work are identified, including greater explorations into how structural and systemic issues impact strike action, the need for greater consideration about the contextual factors that influence the risks and characteristics of strike action and finally the need to tie this literature to existing empirical evidence. (shrink)

Resistance is a concept understudied in the context of health and healthcare. This is in part because visible forms of social protest are sometimes understood as incongruent with professional identity, leading healthcare workers to separate their visible actions from their working life. Resistance takes many forms, however, and focusing exclusively on the visible means more subtle forms of everyday resistance are likely to be missed. The overarching aim of this study was to explore how resistance was enacted within the workplace (...) amongst a sample of twelve healthcare workers, based in the United Kingdom; exploring the forms that such action took and how this intersected with health and healthcare. In depth-interviews were conducted and results were analysed utilizing Lilja’s framework ( 2022 ). Our findings suggest that resistance took a number of forms, from more direct confrontational acts, to those which sought to avoid power or which sought to create alternative or prefigurative practices or norms. These findings speak to the complexities, ambiguities, and contradictions of resistance, as carried out by healthcare workers in the workplace. While many acts had clear political motives, with issues like climate change in mind for example, participants also described how the act of providing care itself could be an act of resistance. While saying something about our participants, this also said something about the healthcare systems in which they worked. These findings also raise a range of normative issues. Perhaps needless to say, there appears to be substantial scope to expand and interrogate our findings and apply the idea of resistance to health and healthcare. (shrink)

Previous research has established that the success of strikes, and social movements more broadly, depends on their ability to garner support from the public. However, there is scant published research investigating the response of the public to strike action by healthcare workers. In this study, we address this gap through a study of public responses to UK nursing strikes in 2022–2023, using a data set drawn from Twitter of more than 2300 publicly available tweets. We focus on negative tweets, investigating (...) which societal discourses social media users draw on to oppose strike action by nurses. Using a combination of corpus‐based approaches and discourse analysis, we identified five categories of opposition: (i) discourse discrediting nurses; (ii) discourse discrediting strikes by nurses; (iii) discourse on the National Health System; (iv) discourse about the fairness of strikers' demands and (v) discourse about potential harmful impact. Our findings show how social media users operationalise wider societal discourses about the nursing profession (e.g., associations with care, gender, vocation and sacrifice) as well as recent crises such as the Covid‐19 pandemic to justify their opposition. The results also provide valuable insights into misconceptions about nursing, strike action and patient harm, which can inform strategies for public communication. (shrink)

Resistance involves a range of actions such as disobedience, insubordination, misbehaviour, agitation, advocacy, subversion, and opposition. Action that occurs both publicly, privately, and day-to-day in the delivery of care, in discourse and knowledge. In this article I will demonstrate how resistance plays an important role in shaping health and well-being, for better and worse. To show how it can be largely productive and protective, I will argue that resistance intersects with health in at least two ways. First, it acts as (...) an important counterbalance to power; undermining harmful policies, disobeying unfair instructions, challenging rights abuses, confronting those who would otherwise turn a blind eye and even holding ourselves to account when simply accepting the status quo. Second, and beyond being oppositional, resistance is a constructive, productive force, that is fundamental to imagining alternatives; new and better futures and perhaps most fundamentally resistance is cause for hope that we are not resigned to the status quo. While there are numerous examples of how resistance has been employed in service of health and well-being, resistance is not always rational or productive, it can also harm health. I will briefly explore this point. Finally, I will offer some reflections on the intersections of power and health and why this makes resistance both distinct and important when it comes to how it shapes health and well-being. (shrink)

Political action has a long history in the health workforce. There are multiple historical examples, from civil disobedience to marches and even sabotage that can be attributed to health workers. Such actions remain a feature of the healthcare community to this day; their status with professional and regulatory bodies is far less clear, however. This has created uncertainty for those undertaking such action, particularly those who are engaged in what could be termed ‘contentious’ forms of action. This study explored how (...) advocacy and activism were presented in nursing and medical codes of ethics, comparing disciplinary and temporo‐spatial differences to understand how such action may be promoted or constrained by codes. The data for this study comes from 217 codes of ethics. Because of the size of the corpus and to facilitate analysis, natural language processing was utilised, which allowed for an automated exploration of the data and for comparisons to be drawn between groups. This was complemented by a manual search and contextualisation of the data. While there were noticeable differences between medical and nursing codes, overall, advocacy, activism and even politics were rarely discussed explicitly in most codes. When such action was spoken about, this was often vague and imprecise with codes speaking of ‘political action’ and ‘advocacy’ in general terms. While some codes were far more forthright in what they meant about advocacy or broader political action (i.e., Nursing codes in Denmark, Norway, Canada) more forceful language that spoke in specific terms or in terms of oppositional or specific actions (e.g., civil disobedience or marches) was almost completely avoided. These results are discussed in relation to the broader literature on codes and the normative questions they raise, namely whether such action should be included in codes of ethics at all. (shrink)

Healthcare organisations are hierarchical; almost all are organised around the ranking of individuals by authority or status, whether this be based on profession, expertise, gender or ethnicity. Hierarchy is important for several reasons; it shapes the delivery of care, what is prioritised and who receives care. It also has an impact on healthcare workers and how they work and communicate together in organisations. The purpose of this scoping review is to explore the qualitative evidence related to hierarchy in healthcare organisations (...) defined broadly, to address gaps in macro‐level healthcare organisational research, specifically focusing on the (1) impact of hierarchy for healthcare workers and (2) how hierarchy is negotiated, sustained and challenged in healthcare organisations. After a search and screening, 32 papers were included in this review. The findings of this review detail the wide‐reaching impacts that hierarchy has on healthcare delivery and health workers. The majority of studies spoke to hierarchy's impact on speaking up, that is, how it shaped communication between staff with differential status: not only what was said, but how it had an impact on what was acceptable to say, by whom and at what time. Hierarchy was also noted to have substantial personal costs, impacting on the well‐being of those in less powerful positions. These findings also provide insight into the complex ways in which hierarchy was negotiated, challenged and reproduced. Studies not only detailed the way in which hierarchy was navigated day to day but also spoke to the reasons as to why hierarchy is often entrenched and difficult to shift. A number of studies spoke to the impact that hierarchy had in sustaining gender and ethnic inequalities, maintaining historically discriminatory practices. Importantly, hierarchy should not be reduced to differences between or within the professions in localised contexts but should be considered at a broad organisational level. (shrink)

In this article, I will argue that the delivery of healthcare could be an act of resistance, that is, day‐to‐day, routine and perhaps mundane acts, undertaken in the course of the delivery of health services, which for many could also be considered otherwise routine care. I first consider how resistance has been conceptualised. How we understand resistance will determine if we believe healthcare could be conceptualised this way. I will show how resistance has been applied to day‐to‐day struggles elsewhere and (...) argue that it can clearly encompass open, collective dissent and more subtle, day‐to‐day action that does not necessarily make clear political demands. I go on to introduce some examples, where the delivery of health services could be conceptualised as resistance. While I advocate for a broad understanding of resistance, clearly not every act could be considered resistance; I will consider some points of tension and contention in utilising resistance to describe the delivery of health services, in particular discussing the issue of intent and opposition as they relate to resistance. Finally, while I hope that I make a convincing case, one final issue remains, namely, why turn to resistance at all, when many of the examples that I provide could be labelled using concepts that are more widely utilised. I will offer some general reflections on this point, speaking to the benefits and potential of resistance. (shrink)

Healthcare strikes have been a remarkably common and varied phenomenon. Strikes have taken a number of forms, lasting from days to months, involving a range of different staff and impacting a range of healthcare systems, structured and resourced vastly differently. While there has been much debate about strike action, this appears to have done little to resolve the often polarising debate that surrounds such action. Building on the existing normative literature and a recent synthesis of the empirical literature, this paper (...) will present a deliberative framework to assess the justifiability of strike action. I will first review the empirical literature that explores the impact of strike action, on patient outcomes and healthcare delivery. I will then discuss the debates that have occurred in this area, including an existing deliberative framework proposed by Selemogo (2014). I will argue that this framework is overly restrictive in that it could lead us to find otherwise justified strike action, unjust. I will then propose a framework that remedies these shortcomings. The framework outlines two broad conditions that should be met if strike action is to be justified. It then goes on to outline two deliberative, interrelated questions that should be used to assess whether strike action meets these conditions. For the purposes of this framework, healthcare strike action is justified when 1) it makes demands or raises grievances about some form of injustice, unfairness or threat to health and when 2) the risks in striking are proportionate to its demands or grievances. These two conditions should be considered in light of two further questions, namely, the 3) social and political context of the strike and 4) the characteristics of the strike. I will offer some further reflections on the application of this framework and its shortcomings. (shrink)

Civility is a nice idea. While we find common ground with the aspirations of a civility-based professional culture in healthcare and acknowledge the potential impacts of incivility on staff and patients, we should be careful in dismissing it entirely, as McCullough et al 1 do. As we will argue below, appeals to civility, when understood alongside power, could serve to stifle and mask legitimate dissent, limiting genuine criticism and progress. Crucially, we contend that incivility itself may serve instrumental and communicative (...) purposes that draw attention to injustice or inequity. Our aim is not to defend every act of incivility but to caution calls for its prevention. By focusing on intentional acts of incivility and by emphasising the political, we hope to show that ‘being polite is not the same as being a good citizen’2 and the absence of tension is not the same as the presence of justice (King, 1963).3 We go on to discuss the implications of this approach to addressing ‘uncivil’ behaviour, arguing that incivility is a by-product of institutions that dismiss genuine grievances and maintain inequitable conditions. When we …. (shrink)

Background Non-violent resistance which has involved healthcare workers has been instrumental in securing a number of health-related gains and a force in opposing threats to health. Despite this, we know little about healthcare workers who have engaged in acts of non-violent resistance. Research aim Amongst a sample of healthcare workers who had engaged in acts of resistance this study sought to explore their understanding of non-violent resistance and how or whether they felt healthcare workers made a distinct contribution to such (...) action. Research design Cross-sectional survey Participants and research context Healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, academics and others) from the UK and Europe who had engaged in acts of non-violent resistance. Ethical considerations Ethical approval for this study was granted by the University of Greenwich Human Research Ethics Committee (UREC/20.5.6.11). Findings/results Most participants spoke about the nature of non-violent resistance, its oppositional, didactic and symbolic functions and the role of violence or harm. While most people understood non-violent resistance as a public, oppositional and collective act, many identified more subtle everyday acts in the workplace that undermined policy or procedures they saw as harmful. When asked about distinctions in non-violent resistance carried out by healthcare workers, most participants referred to their standing in society, noting that healthcare works were a trusted and authoritative source. Some identified an ethical imperative to act while others identified the risks that came with such action, noting their accountability and responsibility they had to patients. About a quarter of participants felt that such action was no different to others carrying out non-violent resistance or dependent on the issue or nature of the action. Conclusions These findings speak to the complex and multifaceted nature of non-violent resistance. Additionally our findings suggest healthcare workers have a distinct role to play in leading and supporting non-violent actions. (shrink)

Australian immigration detention has received persistent criticism since its introduction almost 25 years ago. With the recent introduction of offshore processing, these criticisms have intensified. Riots, violence, self-harm, abuse and devastating mental health outcomes are all now well documented, along with a number of deaths. Clinicians have played a central role working in these environments, faced with the overarching issue of delivering healthcare while facilitating an abusive and harmful system. Since the re-introduction of offshore processing a number of authors have (...) begun to discuss the possibility of a boycott. While taking such action may lead to change, further discussion is needed, not only in relation to the impact of a boycott, but whether it is possible for clinicians to engage with this system in more productive, ethical ways. This article utilises a framework proposed by Lepora and Goodin that provides a structured approach to examine complicity and seeks to explore how clinicians have engaged with Australian immigration detention and ultimately whether they should continue to do so. (shrink)

Australian immigration detention has been called state sanctioned abuse, cruel and degrading and likened to torture. Clinicians have long worked both within the system providing healthcare and outside of it advocating for broader social and political change. It has now been over 25 years and little, if anything, has changed. The government has continued to consolidate power to enforce these policies and has continued to attempt to silence dissent. It was in this context that a boycott was raised as a (...) possible course of action. Despite discussions among the healthcare community about the merits of such action, a number of questions have been overlooked. In this article, I will examine whether a boycott is both ethical and feasible. Taking into account the costs and benefits of current engagement and the potential impact of a boycott, more specifically the potential it has to further harm those detained, I conclude that under current circumstance a boycott cannot be justified. This however does not mean that a boycott should be dismissed completely or that the status quo should be accepted. I discuss potential ways forward for those seeking change. (shrink)

Background Ethical climate refers to the shared perception of ethical norms and sets the scope for what is ethical and acceptable behaviour within teams. Aim This paper sought to explore perceptions of ethical climate amongst healthcare workers as measured by the Ethical Climate Questionnaire (ECQ), the Hospital Ethical Climate Survey (HECS) and the Ethics Environment Questionnaire (EEQ). Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was utilised. PSYCINFO, CINAHL, WEB OF SCIENCE, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and papers were included if they (...) sampled healthcare workers and used the ECQ, HECS or EEQ. Ethical consideration Ethical approval was not required. Results The search returned 1020 results. After screening, 61 papers were included ( n = 43 HECS, n = 15 ECQ, n = 3 EEQ). The overall sample size was over 17,000. The pooled mean score for the HECS was 3.60. Mean scores of individual studies ranged from 2.97 to 4.5. For the HECS studies, meta-regression was carried out. No relationship was found between the country of the studies, the study setting (ICU v non-ICU settings) or the mean years of experience that the sample had. For the ECQ, sub-scales had mean scores ranging from 3.41 (instrumental) to 4.34 (law) and were all observed to have significant and substantial heterogeneity. Three studies utilised the EEQ so further analysis was not carried out. Conclusions The above results provide insight into the variability of scores as measured by the HECS, ECQ and EEQ. To some extent, this variability is not surprising with studies carried out across 21 countries and in a range of healthcare systems. Results also suggest that it may be that more local and context specific factors are more important when it comes to predicting ethical climate. (shrink)

Although Australia has comparatively few individuals seeking asylum, it has had a mandatory detention policy in place since 1992. This policy has been maintained by successive governments despite the overwhelmingly negative impact mandatory detention has on mental health. For mental health professionals working in this environment, a number of moral, ethical, and human rights issues are raised. These issues are discussed here, with a focus on dual loyalty conflicts and drawing on personal experience, the bioethics and human rights literature, and (...) recent parliamentary inquiries. For those who continue to work in this environment, future directions are also discussed. (shrink)

In this paper, I will argue that a number of well-known health interventions or initiatives could be considered anarchist, or at the very least are consistent with anarchist thinking and principles. In doing this I have two aims: First, anarchism is a misunderstood term—by way of example, I hope to first sketch out what anarchist solutions in health and healthcare could look like; second, I hope to show how anarchist thought could stand as a means to improve the health of (...) many, remedying health inequalities acting as a buffer for the many harms that threaten health and well-being. On this second point, I will argue that there are a number of theoretical and instrumental reasons why greater engagement with anarchism and anarchist thinking is needed, along with how this could contribute to health and in addressing broader injustices that create and perpetuate poor health. (shrink)

Self-harm within immigration detention centres has been a widely documented phenomenon, occurring at far higher rates than the wider community. Evidence suggests that factors such as the conditions of detention and uncertainty about refugee status are among the most prominent precipitators of self-harm. While important in explaining self-harm, this is not the entire story. In this paper, we argue for a more overtly political interpretation of detainee self-harm as resistance and assess the ethical implications of this view, drawing on interviews (...) with detainees from Australia’s offshore system. Self-harm by detainees is not only a medical ‘condition’ arising in response to oppression but a form of political action to lessen or contest it. We first establish how self-harm could be conceptualised as resistance. We then discuss its political purpose, noting it serves at least three functions: intrinsic, instrumental and disruptive or coercive. Viewing detainee self-harm as political resistance is a supplement to (rather than a substitute for) a medical approach. However, conceptualising self-harm this way has several advantages, namely, moving away from the idea that such behaviour is ‘maladaptive’, recognising detainees as political agents, combatting government claims of ‘manipulation’ and ‘blackmail’ and clarifying the duties of healthcare workers who work in detention. (shrink)

Australian immigration detention has been called state sanctioned abuse and a crime against humanity. The Australian healthcare community has been closely involved with these policies, calling for their reform and working within detention centres to provide healthcare. As well as having a devastating impact on health, immigration detention changes the scope and nature of healthcare, with its delivery described as a Sisyphean task. In this article I will explore the guidance that is available to clinicians who work within detention centres (...) and argue that codes, guidelines and positions statements provide little help in relation to ethical decision making. First I will outline guidance that can be found in codes of ethics and position statements, focusing on particularly relevant principles, such as advocacy, clinical independence and the clinicians’ relationship to human rights. I will then highlight the disparity between this guidance and the delivery of healthcare within detention by drawing on the testimony of clinicians who formerly worked in these environments. While this disparity should be cause for alarm and at a minimum call into question how codes and positions statements are being used, there are more fundamental reasons why codes and position statements fail to provide guidance in these circumstances. I will outline a more general criticism of codes of ethics and use this to suggest a way forward, including looking beyond codes and position statements to guide action within Australian immigration detention. (shrink)

In February 2016 a twelve-month-old asylum seeker, who came to be know as Baby Asha, was transferred from Nauru and hospitalized in Brisbane. This case came to public attention after Doctors refused to discharge Asha as she would have been returned to detention on Nauru. What in other circumstances would have been considered routine clinical care, quickly turned into an act of civil disobedience. This paper will discuss the ethical aspects of this case, along with its implications for clinicians and (...) the broader healthcare community. (shrink)

There are few issues that have been as vexing for the Australian healthcare community as the Australian governments policy of mandatory, indefinite, immigration detention. While many concepts have been used to begin to describe the many dilemmas faced by healthcare professionals and their resolution, they are limited, perhaps most fundamentally by the fact that immigration detention is antithetical to health and wellbeing. Furthermore, and while most advice recognises that the abolition of detention is the only option in overcoming these issues, (...) it provides little guidance on how action within detention could contribute to this. Drawing on the work of political theorists and the broader sociological literature, we will introduce and apply a form of action that has not yet been considered for healthcare workers within detention, resistance. We will draw on several examples from the literature to show how everyday resistance could be enacted in healthcare and immigration detention settings. We argue that the concept of resistance has several conceptual and practical advantages over much existing guidance for healthcare workers in these environments, namely that it politicises care and has synergies with other efforts aimed at the abolition of detention. We also offer some reflections on the justifiability of such action, arguing that it is largely consistent with the existing guidance produced by all major healthcare bodies in Australia. (shrink)

Introduction: Non-violent resistance, carried out by healthcare workers, has been a common phenomenon. Despite this and despite the issues this type of action raises, we know little about the healthcare workers who engage in this action and their perspectives about its justification. This exploratory study sought to address this gap, examining these fundamental questions amongst a sample of healthcare workers who have engaged in acts of resistance, exploring their understanding of non-violent resistance, its justification and the barriers they faced in (...) engaging in such action. Methods: Participants were recruited through Medact's ( https://www.medact.org/ ) member database and directed to an online survey hosted on Qualtrics. While participants were unlikely to be representative of the broader UK healthcare community, participants were in an advantageous position to comment on non-violent resistance. Descriptive quantitative analysis and a content analysis were conducted. Results: The majority of participants felt that non-violent resistance could be justified dependent on its cause and/or the action in question. Within this, most felt that if action were non-violent, that if it didn't harm patients and that if the issue in question had to do with health being compromised, action was often justified. A number of others framed their justification as being a right or duty to engage in non-violent resistance. In relation to barriers to engaging in non-violent resistance, these fell into three categories: personal, professional and broader concerns related to society or the general culture found in healthcare. Within these, time and concerns about registration or the consequences of engaging in action were cited as the greatest barriers. Conclusions: These results suggest that healthcare workers who regularly engage in non-violent action carefully thought through their actions, acknowledging the diversity of actions and issues that could be challenged, for many patient care remained a primary concern. There is a need for clarity from regulatory bodies and in particular the need for dialogue between healthcare bodies and healthcare workers who continue to engage in acts of non-violent resistance. (shrink)

Racism in health and healthcare has long been recognised as a structural issue. While there has been growing research and a number of important initiatives that have come from approaching racism as a structural issue, there is a range of implications that yet have to be explored as they relate to health and healthcare. Conceptualising racism in this way provides a means to consider how it shapes and is shaped by a range of global injustices and serves as a foundation (...) for more egregious harms. It also suggests that if we are to dismantle racism, we need to look both within and beyond the traditional domains of health and healthcare and account for a range of broader forces that sustain and re‐enforce racism. We first discuss the issue of responsibility, drawing on Young's social connection model to argue that we all have a responsibility to take action in addressing structural racism. We will then deal with a question that naturally follows, namely how we discharge our responsibilities, with a focus on the role of disruptive action in challenging power and ignorance in dismantling racism in health and healthcare. (shrink)

Volume 24, Issue 10, October 2024, Page 43-45.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the largest sudden global change to community life in living memory. Since being declared a pandemic in early 2020, there has been a growing body of evidence that h...

Background: Advocacy and activism are dynamic terms representing a spectrum of political action, aiming to achieve social or political change. The extent to which nursing advocacy and activism are legitimate nursing roles has been debated for around 50 years. Nursing regulatory documents, such as codes of conduct and professional standards, may provide direction to nurses on how they should act in the context of advocacy and activism. Aim: To explore what regulatory documents say about advocacy and activism, either explicitly or (...) implicitly, and how they shape advocacy and activism. Research design: We used a Reflexive Qualitative Document Analysis approach with a Critical Feminist lens to analyse contemporary nursing regulatory documents from the USA, UK and Australia. Ethical considerations: This article has no human participants, and informed consent was not required. Findings: We identified eight nursing regulatory documents from the American Nurses Association, Nursing and Midwifery Council and Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia. We constructed two major themes that reveal how nursing advocacy and activism are conceived and shaped in regulatory documents. Theme 1, Ideological arena describes the gendered and neoliberal subtexts influencing advocacy and activism. Theme 2, A five-pointed star, describes the shape of advocacy and activism in the regulatory documents. Conclusions: Regulatory documents from the USA, UK and Australia support diplomatic nursing advocacy and activism for people, equity, ourselves (nurses), the profession and systems change. However, more oppositional and disruptive advocacy and activism are potentially constrained by gendered and neoliberal subtexts that depoliticise nurses’ roles. (shrink)