Is naming of hospitals a matter for nursing ethics? The case of San Francisco General Hospital and Mark Zuckerberg.

Countries without fully funded healthcare rely on charitable donations from individuals and corporations to fund healthcare for vulnerable groups. In some cases, donations result in departments or hospitals being named for the donor. Naming buildings for persons or institutions potentially allows both parties to benefit from reputational connection, which is why a high commercial premium is placed upon, for example, stadium naming rights. Some ‘donations’ to charitable causes are better considered investment because resultant virtue signalling can lead to reputational enhancement. This can cast a different light on the intention on some donors, resulting in a long history of declined donations, notably by tobacco companies. Reputational enhancement of the donor can come at the cost of diminished reputation of the recipient, and it is possible that these changes in public perception have public health implications. Part of the function of nurses and other healthcare professionals is to promote public health and so anything that threatens it is of fundamental concern.
Mark Zuckerberg is inextricably connected to social media particularly Facebook and Instagram and while these platforms have been used to some benefit in healthcare there are also significant concerns in respect of privacy, lacklustre responses to sharing of inappropriate material, and willingness to manipulate users. Facebook has not apologised for undertaking a large study when the emotions of 700,000 people were manipulated without notification, consent or concern for subsequent wellbeing. Taken together, these assessments of the operation and motivation of companies controlled by Mark Zuckerberg argue that they constitute a public health and wellbeing threat which needs to be addressed by healthcare professionals, including public campaigning for changes in social media practice and revocation of naming rights for hospitals.