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?

As long as the people who come up with these theories do it because they want to start a dialog it is fine with me. However, if they have one ridgid idea that they want to force on everyone, well that puts me off. Sound theories tend to stay around because they work in the real world. Reguardless of whether an idea is good or bad it needs to be out there, it needs to be discussed.

Originally posted by WashYaHands

If they want to use the theory to define, explain, and conduct research as to how these interventions help patients, more power to them and more power to the patient.

That, for me, is the key. In order for any theory to have scientific validity, it needs to be measurable, testable, and reproduceable.

In a field where so much of what we do IS measurable, as Raskin points out--infection control, wound healing--there's really no reason why we can't be proving sound science-based theories with concrete outcomes. And given that fact, pie-in-the-sky models with no practical applications are just self-indulgent academic wankathons.

Specializes in Geriatrics/Oncology/Psych/College Health.

Oooooooooooh - makin' my head hurt..... :)

Whoa !!! WAYYYYYy over my head here......I`m on the same wave length as Zoe...Nancy`s therory is the same, and works for me....Now, where`s my Tylenol ????:imbar

Specializes in Geriatrics/Oncology/Psych/College Health.

Cactus wren, honey, I'll see your Tylenol and raise you an extra strength ;).

Wow Jim,

What a wonderful article. I have been needing some kind of validation of this since nursing school in 1977.

I remember when I did a psyche paper in nursing school, I went through hours and hours of research and the emphasis of the paper was that chemicals in the brain (serotonin and dopamine) were in a state of imbalance. I made that wild hypothesis in the paper that mentally ill patients were impossible to cure until these imbalances were physiologically corrected through pharmacological remedies. We could pat the patient on the back and reorient them to time and space, but there was really little we could do other than to classify them and keep them from hurting anyone or themselves.

I got a freaking D on the paper! Instructor told me it was all junk and their was no place for that kind of garbage in the nursing profession....I started to realize at that moment what was wrong in nursing.

Hooray for all you nurses that believe one can be a nurse without caring for a patient as if they were your mommies and daddies! Finally, it is so refreshing to see nurses that do not have that sentimental non-sense feeling about their jobs! I work in an ER. I rarely care for a patient for more than 2 or 3 hours at a time. I don't know these people. I am not capable of caring for a patient who is a complete stranger. You see, it takes a while for people to build a relationship to have that kind of caring. I care about doing my job well and I care about my paycheck that comes about every two weeks. I care that my patients see a professional before them, someone they can trust their lives with. I care that I do not make mistakes in the care of a patient. So I care about my work, and in an acquaintance sort-of-way, I care about the person as a human.

I have problems with nursing theorists. They try to make nursing or describe nursing in such a way that is downright ludicrous. There was one theorist that I read about that described nursing as the interaction of balls of energy that interact with each other,share energy, and affect each other.... blah, blah, blah. I laughed my -ss off after I read this. PLEASE! How does that have anything to do with nursing??? How does this help me triage a patient in active CHF coming in through the front ER doors? How does it help me understand whether or not a patient may be having a reaction to a drug I gave? how does it help me interpret abnormal lab tests so that I can let the physician know something is up with my patient??? Nursing needs to be more like medicine... scientific, yet still have more of a human touch to it. Do you know what would happen if I attached myself to patients like that quack nursing theorist suggests? I see death almost every day that I work... if I cared for my patients like I do my mom or my dad, I would never come back to work! Nursing burnout would be worse. A degree of detachment from a patient allows a nurse to be more objective, calculated, and cool-minded... assets that are very important in a field such as ours.

I do not mean to offend anyone here. But if nursing were more like medicine, we would all be sticking together, working in unions, making great pay with great benefits, having great nurse-patient ratios, and running the hospitals. Instead, we have this stupid theory of caring that causes us to be selfless, take less pay, get disrespected, and get stepped on. No thank you! :(

In 12 years of Nursing I think I have done a great job of caring for people I didn't/don't care about. My level of concern isn't based on emotional attachment...sometimes you carry a patient home in a little corner of your heart/brain...others cease to exist the minute you walk out the door, they all get the same treatment, both physically and emotionally.

I don't remember taking any philosophical type nursing theory in my ADN program...all of our theory classes were pretty much lecture/study expansion on the skill or body system we were covering in clinical that term.

Specializes in LDRP; Education.
Originally posted by oramar

Suzy, thank you for posting this question, I love this intellectual stuff. Also, I love to be introduced to some ideas I have not heard before.

Oramar, and Marie:

You're welcome! :D

If you notice, I go in cycles. I only post these things when I'm in school. Summer I posted basically norhing! Heee Heee.

For those of you unfamiliar with Watson, she is typically presented with other fundamental theorists, such as Henderson and Rogers. Usually those three. Of course, depending on the philosophy of your nursing school you attended, Watson may have been omitted. As with Karen's school, they came from Neuman's theoretical framework, which, I just read two critiquing articles about her. In fact one of them tested her theory/philosophy in setting up a curriculum. The author never did state the outcome; so I am going to look at your post a bit more carefully and probably use them in discussion, if you don't mind. ;)

Specializes in LDRP; Education.
Originally posted by Stargazer

That, for me, is the key. In order for any theory to have scientific validity, it needs to be measurable, testable, and reproduceable.

In a field where so much of what we do IS measurable, as Raskin points out--infection control, wound healing--there's really no reason why we can't be proving sound science-based theories with concrete outcomes. And given that fact, pie-in-the-sky models with no practical applications are just self-indulgent academic wankathons.

I agree, except there are things nurses do that aren't measurable; ethics for one, caring the other. Also, it seems that nursing borrows alot of it's theories from other disciplines; why is that?

I really want to construct a philosophy of nursing that can actually define the profession; one that does so without the academic/philosophical jargon, one that allows a nurse to take that and adapt it to individualize her practice, and one that address the nurse as a whole: her scientific, empirical knowledge that IS measurable, and the pieces of nursing that are hard to define and measure - like the art of nursing.

Specializes in LDRP; Education.
Originally posted by OBNURSEHEATHER

Since I have never even heard of her, I would have to say yes.

Heather

Only you, Heather. :D

Specializes in LDRP; Education.
Originally posted by NurseMark25

I do not mean to offend anyone here. But if nursing were more like medicine, we would all be sticking together, working in unions, making great pay with great benefits, having great nurse-patient ratios, and running the hospitals. Instead, we have this stupid theory of caring that causes us to be selfless, take less pay, get disrespected, and get stepped on. No thank you! :(

There is alot that nursing can learn from medicine. Medical education struggled during it's early colonial times, but toughened up, standardized, and walla - we have what we have today. A defined profession with standardized education, measurable outcomes and respect.

+ Add a Comment