Nursing sientists....

[Great Dane]

Am I the only nursing student going nuts over all the nursing sientists, like Florence Nighitngale, Virginia Henderson, Kari Martinsen, Katie Eriksson etc etc. I once counted it, and I think we have read about 15-20 different nursing sientists, and they all say the same thing "Be nice to the patient"

Or is it only in Denmark and the nordic countries we have so much of that stuff. All the RN's say they hated it too and say they dont understand why we have so much of that stuff. The only ones I ever hear say something nice about it is the teachers, but they have to, I guess.

Do you have a lot of that stuff too, and are you going as crazy over it as I am?

:angryfire

It might be because I guy, I'm not that much into that stuff

[nursemaa]

Dear Nursemaa:

Let's be clear about our language here. We will just run in circles if we don't. I am using the word science to mean an empirical, data driven system of observation, hypothesis formulation, measurement of variables, and conclusions.

The problem with the gnostic nursing theories is that the "variables" in which they deal are not measurable. (Like... human spirit, aura, holisitic connections with nature and between nurse and patient, and so on.) It is in this sense that these theorists FLEE FROM REASON and take our profession with them.

I just re-read what I wrote, and it seems I was implying that we shouldn't base our actions on science. Sorry for the confusion, that's not really what I meant. I was merely trying to say that in my opinion, it is not bad to consider non-measurable things like spirit, emotions, and the like in addition to science and facts...we are after all humans, and made up of more than molecules (again, it's my opinion). And for the record, I'm not really into auras, reiki etc....just that I believe the human spirit needs care also, and nurses are in a good position to provide that care.

And the comment about physicians was a joke, hence the laughing smilie after it. Take it easy.

[1Tulip]

And the comment about physicians was a joke, hence the laughing smilie after it. Take it easy.

I got you now. OK. I guess I flinched, because that anti-MD thing has, in the whole lamentable history of nursing theory, actually been articulated by (Papaw John's) "professional" types. Theory was all the rage in the early to mid 70's, when the feminist movement was gaining strength. The ol' gals that ran graduate departments in schools of nursing deliberately tried to define nursing away from all of that physical/patho/pharm dependent-nursing functions. Thus setting up that false dichotomy that still has some currency in some academic circles.

Sorry for painting you with their brush.

[nursemaa]

I got you now. OK. I guess I flinched, because that anti-MD thing has, in the whole lamentable history of nursing theory, actually been articulated by (Papaw John's) "professional" types. Theory was all the rage in the early to mid 70's, when the feminist movement was gaining strength. The ol' gals that ran graduate departments in schools of nursing deliberately tried to define nursing away from all of that physical/patho/pharm dependent-nursing functions. Thus setting up that false dichotomy that still has some currency in some academic circles.

I know, and some of them went way out there, didn't they?? I actually believe nursing is a wonderful blend of science and emotional/spiritual/psych. I wonder if sometimes that's the difficult part for some nurses- if you tend to be a very scientific thinker you struggle with the psych/emotional/spiritual part, and vice-versa. Anyway, although I think most of the theorists are a little crazy, I do enjoy reading their thoughts- I tend to think of them more as philosophies than theories though. Kolcaba's comfort theory is one that makes sense to me, as does Orem's self-care. Most of the others are too far out there for me to get a handle on!:wink2:

[1Tulip]

I know, and some of them went way out there, didn't they?? I actually believe nursing is a wonderful blend of science and emotional/spiritual/psych. I wonder if sometimes that's the difficult part for some nurses- if you tend to be a very scientific thinker you struggle with the psych/emotional/spiritual part, and vice-versa. Anyway, although I think most of the theorists are a little crazy, I do enjoy reading their thoughts- I tend to think of them more as philosophies than theories though. Kolcaba's comfort theory is one that makes sense to me, as does Orem's self-care. Most of the others are too far out there for me to get a handle on!:wink2:

I think we agree, but you're a more patient and generous person than I am. I must admit that some of the ol' gals really get under my skin. However, let me suggest that even emotional responses can be studied scientifically. You can develop a hypothesis about them, control some variables, study responses, measure them and apply statistical tests and make conclusions. So, it seems to me that you don't have to "choose" between being scientific and being empathetic.