Can Someone Be a Nurse Without Jean Watson??

Nurses General Nursing

Published

Ok now, as I delve back INTO nursing philosophy and theories, I come across, again, the theories of Jean Watson that have been hailed as the greatest thing since polyurethane IV bags - The Caring Theory of Nursing.

Personally, I have never been a fan of Watson, only because I feel that she OVERemphasized the caring aspect, and, in my opinion, dumbified nursing - hence, the ad campaign in the late 80's "If Caring Were Enough, Anyone Could Be a Nurse." Watson threw a fit when she saw this.

As nursing evolves to a more technically challenging field, requiring more acute assessment skills, and as the

"How Women Know" movement which has shaped nursing education for the last decade or so has become archaic, wondering what your thoughts are on if someone can be a nurse and NOT subscribe to the caring theory. Can one be a competent nurse and NOT care about her patients any more deeply than simply getting the job done?

Watson's theory goes a bit deeper than simply "caring" - more so than "caring" about any other job. But "caring" as far as honestly caring about the patient as you would your mom or dad.

Do you think someone CAN be an effective nurse WITHOUT having so much an emphasis on loving her patients?

Oh, fer cryin' out loud. :rolleyes:

People who read this board regularly know Susy is an experienced L&D nurse and clinic nurse.

Either would be nice.

The basis of the debate here has condensed down to where the priorities are in nursing and what is really important to the patient to justify our profession.

What is the criteria any profession uses to elevate itself in the public's perception to cross the line from appreciation to need?

Here is my take: competence, efficiency, quality, and timeliness.

These characteristics support the concept of ultimate caring. If these concepts are available, caring is not an issue, it is a GIVEN.

If you were a patient, which would you rather have, a cracker-jack IV starter that was so smooth you didn't even flinch, or my scenario posted above?

Nursing is caring when we perform competently, efficiently, with quality in a timely manner. The caring feature is a result of the mothering instinct carried over and expounded and we have beat it to death....yet we are not one inch closer to explaining it, we haven't even yet come to an admission it may not need explaining, that it is a simple concept provable and not much different than the social behaviors recognized in a Chimp colony.

These are social behaviors intrinsic to many species yet nursing theorists are making the statement that somehow nursing has a monopoly on it.

Let's face it, docs care, lawyers care, firefighters care, policemen care, teachers care, ministers care, Socrates and Plato and Aristotle cared, and I bet Bret Favre does too. I know Troy Aikman does. Do we care any more than any of the above?

Caring is a starting point, just as mothering is. It is a basic fact.

When caring is extended to its rationale objective, and that is to produce whatever needs are needed by another, then it has satisfied its reason for existence.

From a business standpoint: "If it absolutely, positively, has to be there overnight!" FedEx. What does this statement say?

I care enough about you and your dollar that you can trust me implicitly to address this need and solve this problem for you...no ands or buts. You will FEEL good about this. The same with Southwest Airlines. These two business entities have advanced themselves through competency, quality, efficiency, and timeliness. Caring is an innate portion of their philosophy that fosters these concepts and look how much they have benefitted, the results are the measurement. Yet know one ever hears about how much they care, when obviously they do, and it is no secret. A discussion of it is not merited and is foolhardy.

What I am saying here is that caring is not unique to nursing. It is documentable everywhere. We have no monolpoly, our caring is no different than anyone else's. If we REALLY cared we would up the ante and secure educations much more relevant to what is expected, then we can acquicese new frontiers.

Has anyone in nursing really asked the question "Can caring be taught?", "Is it teachable?" "If it can, differentiate between that and acquiring new social skills."

Specializes in LDRP; Education.
Originally posted by Stargazer

Oh, fer cryin' out loud. :rolleyes:

People who read this board regularly know Susy is an experienced L&D nurse and clinic nurse.

Thank you.

:rolleyes:

Specializes in LDRP; Education.

Glad2behere:

You actually went down a path that a few of my friends in my class and I did.

In reading a book, I believe it was Developing a Philosophy of Nursing by Kikuchi and Simmons, the point was made that health is something that nurses safeguard. It was also discussed how "health" can mean different things to different people, based on their circumstance or surroundings. We wondered then, if in developing a philosophy of nursing, we should take into account the nurses' view of health or the public's?

And so your post made me think: should we define a nurse based on what the public wants or based upon what WE know?

So far I like your idea alot.

And as far as caring: yes I firmly agree with you. Nursing does not hold the patent on that, I believe. In fact I know some non-nurses who appear more devoted to their job than I! We also discussed if caring CAN be taught, and in measurable terms. So far, my answer to that is a resounding NO.

I don't think knowledge about nursing theories, - research etc. is something for "those" nurses (LOL, I am not one of them) with advanced degrees.

We start with simple basics in our diploma-program over here, also because the students should be able to (with our help) at least look at an abstract, then read the whole article about whatever nursingitem, and see the abstract and the article are completely different. Now this is just an example, happens quite a lot though.

What we try to teach in our research-classes, is first of all, critical reading of articles and being able to tell, what is not 100% ok.

We do not set the goal, that our students should be able to analyze, that would be to high. That is something for further studies.

And I can't take post 132 very serious on this thread, must reapeat myself again, this is one of the very best I ever was able to join!

Susy, there is hardly anything in English on this ladies, but I am trying to translate their basic views, will take a few more days though.

Take care, Renee

Originally posted by Glad2behere

Here is my take: competence, efficiency, quality, and timeliness.

These characteristics support the concept of ultimate caring. If these concepts are available, caring is not an issue, it is a GIVEN.

Nursing is caring when we perform competently, efficiently, with quality in a timely manner.

...we are not one inch closer to explaining it, we haven't even yet come to an admission it may not need explaining

Wow. I just found these concepts so powerful I wanted to separate them out and look at them again.

And as the sister of a cop and a firefighter, I think you make an excellent point: members of these professions obviously care--they risk their lives daily to protect the public. Yet I don't see them agonizing over developing a theory to explain it.

Interesting ideas, thanks.

Specializes in LDRP; Education.
Originally posted by semstr

Susy, there is hardly anything in English on this ladies, but I am trying to translate their basic views, will take a few more days though.

Take care, Renee

LOL Don't bust yer balls, Renee! I thought you had them handy or something. ;)

Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.

I agree wholeheartedly with Glad2behere when she points out that nurses aren't the only people who care. That's one of the main problems with making "caring" the centerpiece of any definitions of nursing. It should also be pointed out that none of the theorists who focus on caring mean to imply that other professions don't care -- at least none that I have ever met or read.

That doesn't mean that the concept of caring isn't important to nursing or not worth exploring.

Also, while studying with caring theorists in Colorado, revisions and refinements to Dr. Watson's work were always being discussed. In fact, Dr. Watson herself said to us in her class that, if she were doing it over again, she would not have stopped at 10 "carative" factors. Even she readily admits that her original work is not a complete list of all aspects or types of caring. Anyone who treats the list as "gospel" is not being consistent with Dr. Watson's own views of her theory.

Finally, "technical competence" was generally agreed by the students to be a definite part of caring -- one that should have been more prominent in the original work. I don't know of any caring theorist who believe that technical competence is unimportant. It is assumed as a necessary foundation to practice in a caring manner.

llg

Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.

I thought I should tell the story (as told to those of us in one of her classes) of how her theory and first book came to written.

She had been in faculty meetings at which they were trying to re-organize their undergraduate curriculum. Now, I know that may seem like a ridiculous activity to some people -- but it has to be periodically. Every now and then a school has to re-assess itself and decide what it is going to teach and how it is going to organize its classes. Most students come into a program needing some structure around which to organize all the information they receive.

She didn't say exactly what it was that made her angry about the meeting, just she was very dissatisfied with it and frustrated. So, she sat down and wrote out what she felt was a better way to organize the information -- a way which brought out aspects of nursing that had previously been rarely discussed.

So, you see, it did not originate as a specific description for specific direct-patient-care acts. It was originally intended as a broad framework around which to base a course of study.

llg

Specializes in LDRP; Education.

llg,

But couldn't we assume that Watson's theories are really just givens in the "helping" professions?

Specializes in Nursing Professional Development.

Susy K,

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by your question.

I think the fact that caring exists can be assumed in many; many professions. I think it is also safe to say that all professions include some individuals who "care" very little.

That doesn't mean that it is not worthwhile to study the nature of caring and how to BEST USE it to help others. Just because caring is a common phenomenon doesn't mean there is no need to understand it fully. Have you read the chapter on Kristen Swanson yet? In her work, she has built on Watson's early work on caring and is developing intervention strategies based directly on her (Swanson's) theory of caring. Her work is a demonstration of how Watson's early work can be put to practical use.

llg

Specializes in LDRP; Education.
Originally posted by llg

Have you read the chapter on Kristen Swanson yet? In her work, she has built on Watson's early work on caring and is developing intervention strategies based directly on her (Swanson's) theory of caring. Her work is a demonstration of how Watson's early work can be put to practical use.

llg

I haven't read it in it's entirity, but I did skim it so far and did see that Watson was a major influence in her work. I also saw that Watson was her thesis chairperson.

I think you answered my question, though you weren't quite sure what I was asking. I think caring is a phenomenon worthy of study, but I feel that it is overemphasized in most nursing curriculums.

+ Add a Comment