Can Someone Be a Nurse Without Jean Watson??

[Q.]

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?

[BETSRN]

I agree, and even if people think about it, I don't care what they think.

I'm take exception your last statement. My RN to BSN program is going to help me at the bedside. My RN to BSN courses in pathophys., pharmacology, health promotion and assessment, aging in society and community health etc. are not necessarily going to help me in research and management, and I find that last statement a bit to general.

But otherwise, we're on the same page. :)

Why do people always assume that those of us who attended NON BSN programs didn't have courses in pharmacology (they killed us with Pharmacology), pathophysiology, wellness, physical assessment, the elderly and community health?

I have a non-nursing BS and attended a diploma program. I had courses in all the areas I listed above.

[menetopali]

Timothy,

I am shocked and amazed at your post. I have never seen a statement so concisely and accurately sum up my position on a topic from any other person.

llg,

I am currently in a BSN program and having to plow through the likes of Watson and Oerm, and of course Rogers and her "energy fields". While writing I found the restriction of "nursing theories only" (Knowles was dissallowed even though the paper was on adult health education) particurally problematic and the requirement to using "nursing literature only" (if it wasn't published by a journal or magazine with "nurse" in the title then the information isn't relavent to nursing?) somewhat silly. The almost exclusive use of qualitative research in nursing literature limits applicability of results and credibility of research in the eyes of others who are accustomed to quantitative studies.

This self-censorship and construction of walls between nursing and other health providers limits and restricts. It does not serve to expand the view beyond a keyhole, but to actually make the keyhole even smaller. Further the current academic approach to nursing 'theory' appears to avoid both "good science" and "intellectual rigor". For example I am still amazed that "energy field disturbance" is included as a nursing "diagnosis" (per NANDA) when no such "energy field" can be demonstrably shown in any rigorous quantitative study and that a 9-year-old can debunk it in a simple double-blind study (CNN 1998: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/01/therapeutic.touch/index.html#2 )

It is this kind of thing that contributes to disconnect (real or percieved) between nursing and science. Can it make patients feel better? sure, but so does any placebo.

To respond to the OP, yes you can be a great nurse without Watson. Perhaps sombody will come up with a theory that is useful, predicts outcomes, and is scientifically testable for nursing one day. Until then, put the interests of your patient at the forefront of your actions, understand the what and why of the technical skills at your disposal, and don't let anyone douse the flame that illuminates the search for knowledge (even if that knowledge isn't in a journal with "nurse" in the title).

mike

[chadash]

OK, OK, now you got me interested. Energy field disturbance? Any klingons involved?

[UM Review RN, ASN, RN]

OK, OK, now you got me interested. Energy field disturbance? Any klingons involved?

No, but there might be a bit of a warped drive problem. ;)

[BETSRN]

No, but there might be a bit of a warped drive problem. ;)

This "energy field" disturbance stuff. Is this for real? No wonder nursing never gets anywhere. The PhD nurses who haven't taken care of a real person in 50 years are the ones making these ridiculous diagnoses, not to mention they are teaching our up and coming colleagues! Is it any wonder these new grads are so confused and overwhelmed?

[NurCrystal22]

I never heard of Jean Watson. But Whatever.

I do care about my patients, simply because.... that's me.

I think someone can be a nurse WITHOUT caring for or loving the patient, but one must CARE enough to do a good job, ya know...

~Crystal

[chadash]

Oh my, I thought nursing was based on science, not science fiction!

as for caring, absolutely, we__I mean you'all nurses_must care.....

That's all the CNA can do!

[sunnyjohn]

Energy field disturbance? You gotta be kidding me!

[menetopali]

no i'm not kidding about the "energy field disturbance" nursing diagnoses. it is in fact a "diagnosis" accepted and promoted by the North American Nursing Diagnoses Association, the group that academic nurses defer to for establishing what a nursing diagnoses is or isn't.

further those who believe theraputic touch is 'scientific' actually cite this group as providing 'evidence' that "energy fields" exist and can be manipulated to improve healing.

this kind of acceptance of questionable research chips away at the claim of nursing as 'evidence-based' and reduces the credibility of all nursing research.

[sunnyjohn]

no i'm not kidding about the "energy field disturbance" nursing diagnoses. it is in fact a "diagnosis" accepted and promoted by the North American Nursing Diagnoses Association, the group that academic nurses defer to for establishing what a nursing diagnoses is or isn't.

further those who believe theraputic touch is 'scientific' actually cite this group as providing 'evidence' that "energy fields" exist and can be manipulated to improve healing.

this kind of acceptance of questionable research chips away at the claim of nursing as 'evidence-based' and reduces the credibility of all nursing research.

NANDA? That explains it. I've been told that most experienced nurse think NANDA is a bit off. Is that true?

Wll my parents always told me, "You've gotta get along to get on." I'll write the care plans using the off-beat theories if that is what my nursing instructors require for a passing grade.

But I sure won't adopt theories in practice and personal life that are not sound. I guess an open mind is nedded, but not so open that all reasoning and common sense leaks out!

[menetopali]

used NANDA in school and haven't seen a NANDA dx in actual practice yet. i'm back in school and back to the insanity of nursing theory.

[chadash]

my parents always told me, "You've gotta get along to get on." I'll write the care plans using the off-beat theories if that is what my nursing instructors require for a passing grade.

But I sure won't adopt theories in practice and personal life that are not sound. I guess an open mind is nedded, but not so open that all reasoning and common sense leaks out!

There is A LOT of wisdom in what you have said here.

I think there is still some concern about where nursing is going, if the academic types are going for this stuff...