In support of this, the position statement of the American Nurses Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) affirms that, “nursing research worldwide is committed to rigorous scientific inquiry that provides health policy and impact the health of people in all countries” (American Nursing Association, 2003). More specifically, evidence-based nursing is meant to be the basis on which unfair variations in nursing practice are eradicated. However, there are circumstances when traditional approaches to care and treatment can be limiting to the extent that the person may suffer unintentional discriminatory practices.
This may occur if available evidence is inappropriate because it does not reflect truly the unique cultural or biological needs of some population groups. While this does not imply that some population groups get substandard treatment, or even that they will experience harm, benefit or no effect, it is likely that their care may be based on evidence that is neither valid nor reliable in relation to the needs of the population group for whom it is intended.
For example, Braken and Thomas (2000) make the point that it is not whether or not practice is based on evidence, but rather a question of “whose evidence is used and how that evidence is generated”. They assert that “in cross cultural psychiatry, the voices of the minority have been neglected and their priorities and systems of healing silenced by the dominance of traditional psychiatry” (Braken and Thomas, 2000).
Another limitation of evidence-based nursing is the funding issues on the evidences and practice. In some circumstances, it is likely that funding will follow effective treatments, which might lead to difficulties concerning whether or not practice responds to need. For example, Dr. Michael Wooldridge, the Australian Health Minister, is cited in Kerridge et al. (1998) as stating that he would “only pay for operations, drugs and treatments that, according the evidence are proved to work”.