ANA - why not? What have they done etc?

  1. Recently, there has been so much talk about the ANA. Mostly because people relate it too, the only possible organization that could unite and back up nurses (well that opinion varies obviously). So I have a question for all of you out there.

    Are you or are you not a member of the ANA? If so why or why not?

    My response? I started ER right out of school. I thought for sure that's what I wanted to do. I did and still like it...but have my bad nights. I'm straying oooopppps, back to the subject. Well I thought it best to always keep my Avenues open. I did know I had a drive to specialize and try and be the best, at whatever I did.
    Well the ANA came out with a new stand on specialties about this time. Like after a certain date, ADN/ASN/degree program nurses would not be eligible after a certain date, for the CNOR, CNS, etc etc. they said the requirement would be a BS minimum, to specilaize through certification. This really struck me hard. It made me feel inferior, and discriminated against. I could not see how they could discriminate, without loosing a lawsuite. Of course........I was not wasting my money on that either. I looked at this statement, as the ANA's way, of seperating, and dividing nursing more than it already been. My choice? Clearly, never be part of an orginization, that disrupts an allegedly commen goal and/or discriminates openly.

    Rick
    •  
  2. 32 Comments

  3. by   CEN35
    I see this one may fall to the bottom........

    out
  4. by   CEN35
    I have seen so many....."reasons to join". yet it's ok for the ANA to promote and push the hell out of NP's, ND's etc. yet they basically demean the rest IMO.

    rick
  5. by   CEN35
    Good thought Wild, on the fee issue? How about something like this?

    ANA yearly membership fees could be?

    LPN - 25 cents.
    RN - $25 (diploma)
    RN - $50 (ADN or ASN)
    RN - $200 (BSN)
    RN - $300 (MSN)
    RN - $350 (ND)
    RN - $400 (CRNA)
    RN - $500 (NP)

    Although we know this is not true, certainly it would be fitting to the ANA's form or discrimination. This actually leads me to another question here? If somebody is intelligent enough to pass a test, and become a CNOR, or CNS, etc etc........isn't that all that matters? If they fail the ANA wins, they don't become certified. I'll bet there are BSN's out there (I have met some) that couldn't pass a certification test if their life depended on it. (This is in no way meant to degrade a BSN or any other nurse). My point is, it is discrimination. The purpose of a test is to determine your mindset, intelligence and knowledge in that area and/or field.

    Now let me ask you this: This is only for the purpose of example, it is in no way intended to harm, hurt, or offend anybody. Pick a race or religion? Indian, jews, catholics, african americans anybody at all? We all know for instance, that there are many very smart bright capable people who can drive a vehicle in every nationality and/or religion. Now what if the goverment said, anybody who is (specific nationality and/or religion)cannot take a drivers test, and therefore cannot drive a vehicle.

    How long do you think tha would last? Doesn't it somewhat defeat the purpose of having a test?

    Rick
  6. by   jamistlc
    Greetings All Nurses,

    I am a Nurse and my training is as a LPN. I do not support the ANA for two rationales.
    1) They had a 20 year plan to abolish LPN's as Nurses by the year 1980 something, the policy was inacted during the 1960's. Which has resulted in LPN's being displaced from the hospital enviroment, only to return as the nursing crisis esculates.

    2) They still do accept LPN's as full members with voting rights!

    So if you ask me they do not nor would I want them to represent me!

    ------------------
    Visit my web site at <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/4birthing" TARGET=_blank>http://www.geocities.com/4birthing
    </A>Have a Blessed and Peaceful Day,
    Jami
    DoulaNurse@hotmail.com
  7. by   fergus51
    I have never been a member of the ANA or anything, but don't you think you're taking their ideas a little personally? I think the idea of a BSN as the minimum for certification is stupid, but it's not dicrimination. Many courses require a certain level of education. That's all. I just think the whole BSN vs ADN thing is getting out of control and the ANA isn't helping that, but they certainly didn't cause it. We all caused it.
  8. by   Tim-GNP
    Maybe because ANA supporters are tired of hitting our heads against the walls. I have been busy with school work, so haven't had much time to play online.

    Personally, i'm sick of seeing nurses act like nursing is a 'blue-collar' labor camp. It is a profession. Part of being a professional is belonging to your professional organization. Which, I am. I am also ANCC accredited as an advanced practice registered nurse, and when I had a BSN, I was credentialed as a generalist in Gerontological Nursing. I am proud of both of these facts.

    Where is the argument? Everyone is free to run their careers any way that they choose. As for me, I am a professional and will adhere to the un-written rules of professionalism, which dictates belonging to a professional organization. Further, I believe in demonstrating my knowledge via passing an exam that validates my knowledge and shows that I have an area of expertise that is recognized by experts in my field.

    Before the rest of you jump up with your response of: "Oh, I already passed my RN boards", check your definitions in your state nurse practice acts. RN licensure exam assesses only one thing--- MINIMAL competency for SAFE practice. It does not say you are a good nurse, NOT by a long shot.

    Cheers!
  9. by   CEN35
    OK while I normally do not go off on others, the last two posts are a lilttle offending. Passing an exam accredidation does not make one a good nurse either. Second, by limiting who can take or not take it is discrimination. You both have missed a huge point here.
    If the a state said, because your a ctholic you can't even take the driving test, it would be discrimination. You can also bet, it wouldn't last long before a court overuled it! All the ANA does by setting those ridiculous rules, is elminate the potential for membership, and accreditation fo potential people/members. What the hell are they so scared of? If an ADN/ASN?diploma nurse can't pass it, the ANA has nothing to loose. It's all theirs to gaion, charge for the test, and if they fail too bad! I didn't turn this subject and thread into a BSN/ADN /diploma issue. The issue was wehy the ANA would discriminate? Whie I usually keep my mouth shut, I am going to let loose on that now also. In the end the difference between BSN and ADN/diploma programs, seems to be the emphasis. While BSN's spend mush time learning and dealing with management/administrative issues, The ADN/ASN/diploma programs tend to be 99% focused on the clinical setting and bedside nursing. Isn't bedside and clinical nursing where accreditation and certifications should count? You think any patient, nurse, or physician gives a flying #$%^, about whether some administrator or manager who hasn't stepped foot in the clinical setting in years has a CNOR or CSN? Hell no! Who cares? The issue is, the whole thing is a#$ backwards, and yes it is esssentially discrimination.

    Thaat is my last take on this subject.

    Rick
  10. by   CEN35
    BTW, my last post was not intended in any way to offend or disrespect anybody. We all have a right to say what we want in this country. I just spoke my piece is all. Sorry if I offended anyone.

    Rick
  11. by   Jenny P
    The ANA had tried for years to get nursing to agree to a basic entry level of nursing to be the BSN for minimum education for RNs. Their plan was that all current ADNs and Diploma nurses would be "grandfathered in": we would continue to be RNs but that future RNs would have to have to be BSN prepared (I don't remember what the plan was for nursing students). RNs would be "professional" nurses, and LPNs would need 2 years of education and would be the "technical" level of nursing. Current LPNs would also be grandfathered in. ANA tried very hard to get this idea to come to pass for about 30 years, but nurses could not agree on this idea at all (in case you haven't noticed, we don't seem to agree on a lot of things). ANA was not trying to "do away" with LPNs, but rather to advance the profession of nursing so that other professionals would look at nurses as equals. At the time of the certification for BSN level-prepared nurses only, ANA was once again trying to get nurses to accept a higher educational standard for professionals.
    My aunt was a school teacher who had attended "normal training" to become a teacher. When the NEA decided that a bachelors degree was needed for a minimal requirement for teachers, ALL teachers who wanted to continue teaching went back to school and got their bachelor's degrees in less that 10 years (I think she told me 5 or 6 years, but thought I'd fudge on the longer time, just in case). Teaching was also a female-dominated profession, but they were able to get their act together and do what needed to be done for their profession. Why are nurses so different?

    [This message has been edited by Jenny P (edited April 27, 2001).]
  12. by   Tim-GNP
    Apparently you didn't look at ANCC's site very well. Nurses with ADN's, Diploma's and BSN's can all be certified in their field of choice.

    Insofar as your discrimination example. If we were to use your logic, then why shouldn't an LPN file discrimination charges because he/she isn't given an RN license? I'm not turing this into an RN versus LPN debate [because I am still licensed as both in New York]. The state board of nursing lists the qualifications for licensure, and it is up to each individual candidate to measure up to them. If the criteria changed from candidate to candidate to candidate, then you might have a good basis for a discrimination suit.

    I can do nothing of my skin color, I can do something about my education. If you want to learn more about ANCC accreditation, go to www.nursingworld.org and click on thier link. All nurses can and should be certified.

    At first, I would simply dismiss your rude posts as 'penis envy', but I see you sport the coveted credential of the E.R. nurse--- so what's that all about? Same principle, you posess a body of knowledge that I don't have- you proved to a certification board that you posess this knowledge, and that sets you above me to provide care in an E.R. setting? What's wrong with that? I don't have the knowledge of an E.R. nurse. I commend you for your committment to your career.

    Maybe instead of putting others down for trying to advance themselves professionally, you should celebrate the diversity of nursing and commend anyone who loves being a specialist in their own field.


    ------------------
    Tis with our judgements as our watches, none go just alike, yet, each believes his own.
    -Alexander Pope
  13. by   Jason-ACNP
    Well the ANA came out with a new stand on specialties about this time. Like after a certain date, ADN/ASN/degree program nurses would not be eligible after a certain date, for the CNOR, CNS, etc etc. they said the requirement would be a BS minimum, to specilaize through certification. This really struck me hard. It made me feel inferior, and discriminated against. I could not see how they could discriminate, without loosing a lawsuite.

    Yes, I remember this issue well. It is without question one of the most asinine concepts that the ANA has ever proposed. The majority of RNs within the US are either diploma or ADN nurses, and such a move would destroy any chance of gaining membership support via a national campaign. From the standpoint of a diploma/ADN nurse, it certainly appears that the ANA leadership is comprised of a group of pompous Asses.
    They blew it when they merely proposed the issue.

    At first glance, it may appear that the ANA was suggesting that BSNs are bettered prepared and thus more qualified than their colleagues. However, there was a deeper underlying motive, which Jenny and Tim touched on. Unfortunately, nursing is not considered a "profession" by the mainstream (the public, hospital administrators, politicians, and the vast majority of physicians). Regrettably, nursing is viewed as laborious, menial, vocational work with little or no room for advancement. Although this view is unfounded, it nevertheless true. Americans, (generally speaking) do not consider a person to be a "professional" with anything less than a four-year degree. Yes, many people do label themselves as a "professional XYZ". Regardless of the spin they put on their title however, their career is generally not considered a profession. Whether it's wrong or right, it's the way of the world.

    The ANA, astutely aware of nursings' tarnished image, attempted to apply higher standards to nursing. It was their hope that a gradual shift to the BSN degree as the entry level will bring "legitimacy" to nursing. Maybe it was their hope that critical care and ER nurses with a diploma/ADN would pursue a BSN, while encouraging prospective nurses to enter at the BSN level. Clearly their intentions were misguided. The end result was increased dissension among many nurses, as well as a monumental loss of support for the ANA (in my state anyway).

    My personal reason for supporting membership to the ANA is not to shore up support for NPs. Additionally, it isn't to support the ANA's current agenda. My reason for advocating membership to the ANA is so that nurses may have a collective voice to let everyone know that enough is enough. Wildtime states that a dismal 7% percent of nurses across this country belong to the ANA, which equates to 175,000 (based on a population of 2.5 million nurses). Although 7% of nurses make up the ANA, I think it is safe say to say that 93% of nurses share a common thread, which is a disgust for the working conditions and wages within hospitals today. If 93% of nurses united as one, they could have a booming voice. That voice does not have to push the current agenda either. Let your voice be heard within the ANA as you do on this BB.

    As it is now, legislators and leaders of the American Hospital Association (or whatever they call themselves) probably view nursing as a disorganized, poorly led institution. A lack of unity enables these idiots to continue to do as they please, because legislators certainly aren't going to make any sweeping changes. Why should they? They don't see the 2.5 million votes out there telling them to do so. Instead, (in my state) they are proposing a bill to conduct a study to investigate the reasons for the nursing shortage. Unfortunately, only 3% of the 28,000 or so nurses in this state belong to the state's nursing organization. With such poor numbers, they aren't being heard.

    But you are right. If I were a diploma or ADN nurse within an ER or critical care unit, I wouldn't choose to support the ANA either. Yet,let's face it...the current conditions aren't going to get any better. It's time to come together.

  14. by   nurs4kids
    Originally posted by Jenny P:
    Teaching was also a female-dominated profession, but they were able to get their act together and do what needed to be done for their profession. Why are nurses so different?

    [This message has been edited by Jenny P (edited April 27, 2001).]

    You're suggesting teachers are respected and paid what they're worth???

close