roxannekkb

Her initial post only said that she was thrown out of the program, as she was unable to study at that time. She didn't say that it was a permanent thing, ie, that she would never be able to study again. I offered those suggestions, letting her know that there were other options in healthcare if she decided not to apply for nursing again. That's all. Plus I also mentioned other "quick" things, like a tech job. They are in high demand and pay well, and schooling is relatively brief.

There are many careers in healthcare. How about pharmacist, occupational therapist, physical therapist, physician's assistant or physician? If you want to get into something faster, you can be a radiology tech, an ultrasound tech, a respiratory therapist--they all are in demand, all pay well, and schooling is relatively quick.

I know that there are agencies which place nurses overseas, but to work in France, you need to speak French. Saying that you want to work in a hospital with "limited French" or "enough to get by" is the same as saying that you think it's okay for a nurse with "limited English" or "enough English to get by" to work in the U.S. And it's not. You will be dealing with patients, other staff, families, and so on. Your language skills need to be on par so as to communicate easily with all of the above, to read doctor's orders, to speak over the telephone, and so forth. I would suggest that you bring your French up to a fluent level before you even consider going to work in France.

I actually have quit nursing, and now work as a health/medical writer. I could never imagine working in a hospital again. I'd go work at Starbucks if my writing career ever foiled. Other careers of ex-nurses I know--librarian, dental hygienist, nursing home director (still nursing but upstairs in administration and a lot more money!), teacher (grade school), lawyer, physician, jewelry store owner.

One of my instructors tried to talk me out of it. It was my last semester, and she told me to apply to grad school, medical school, law school--or switch my major. She told me that I would be very unhappy as a nurse. She herself, was going to go to medical school. Well, I should have listened to her. Nursing has its good and bad, but overall, it turned out not to be for me. I left nursing, with no regrets. I would sooner drive a truck, or work at Starbucks, than over go back to nursing.

On problem with "new" nurses is that many may be entering nursing because they've seen the glitzy ads that make nursing seem almost glamorous. They're told that it's stable, they can always get a job, they have flexibility, they can "go places," and so on. What is omitted is the real nature of the job, or at least the fact that before they can move to being a nurse practitioner, CRNA, or nurse exec, they need to have some patient care under their belt. I truly think that many really entered the profession without any real thoughts on why they want to do nursing, what the work is really like, and what their responsibilities. Many schools also allow you to glide through, stuffing your head with inane theory and little practicality. Just one take on it. I may be wrong, but I think that this massive recruitment effort is merely bringing warm bodies in who may not really want to be doing nursing.

That's why state BRNs have been so resistant to having one license for the US. It is totally idiotic to have separate state licenses, since the licensing exam is the same nationwide. Some states have joined in a coalition, where the license is recognized. But the bulk of the money goes to self-perpetuate the local BRN. If we had a computerized database, and a nationwide license, then we would be better able to weed out professionals who have lost a license in one state but were now practiicing in another (same for doctors). All we would need would be a small local office to take care of infractions, CEUs, etc. And I would say, have the license good for at least five years. Paying every year or two does nothing to "protect the consumer." The BRNs don't even know if the nurse is dead or alive, as long as the money is sent to them! The system as it now exists is appalling, just a money sucking scheme to support bloated state bureaucracies.

Do what you love. There really isn't any reason to get a BSN if you don't plan on "climbing the nursing ladder." You can always change your mind and go back for it. Right now, do what you really want to be doing. Take photography, take Spanish, go with what your gut tells you. Who knows, you may find that you'll have a photography career on the side. Life is too short to suffer doing what you don't want to be doing. :Melody:

I went straight to NICU after nursing school, and never worked one day on med/surg in my entire nursing career. Don't let anyone tell you that you have to "put in your dues" in med/surg. It's nonsense. I wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes as a floor nurse. If you already know where you'd like to work, then don't waste your time. The adage about having to put in the year on med/surg is about as dated as nursing caps.

This is an interesting article from Deutsche Welle, about how Europeans see the Terri Schiavo case. We tend to think of Western Europe as a very liberal place when it comes to end-of-life issues (ie, euthanasia), but in reality, they have very strict rules about who is "permitted" to die. According to this article, Terri Schiavo would remain on her tube because she left no written directive. When my boyfriend's grandmother (she lived in Berlin) was dying of breast cancer a few years ago, she refused food and water. But she had to sign a document that the doctor gave her, and clearly state that she did not want to be fed, and that she understood the consequences of her actions. They really want to be sure that this is what the patient wants. Europeans Reflect on Schiavo Case The legislative and judicial battle over a Florida man's right to end his comatose wife's life has drawn some surprise reaction in Europe, where legal sympathy for euthanasia is widespread. On a continent where physician-assisted death is far more commonplace than in the United States, the case of Terri Schiavo has struck a chord. Schiavo, who has been in a persistent vegetative state since collapsing in her home in 1990, has been at the center of a legal fight between her husband -- her legal guardian -- and her parents over her husband's right to end her life since 1998. Michael Schiavo went to court eight years ago for the right to remove her feeding tube, saying that she would have never wanted to live in such a state. This past week, the US Congress forced the case from the Supreme Court, which had ruled in Michael Schiavo's favor, back to a Florida district court. The court on Tuesday denied Schiavo's parents the right to restore her feeding tube, a decision that will be appealed. Holland: 2,000 assisted in death each year European countries like the Netherlands, Switzerland and Belgium allow physician-assisted death in various incarnations. In Holland alone, about 2,000 people die through assistance from their doctor each year. But Schiavo wouldn't be one of them. Dutch laws, like those in Switzerland and Belgium, require that the patient clearly and insistently request death. Schiavo, had she ever requested death should she fall into a vegetative state, did not insist on it. For this reason, even relatively socially liberal groups, like the Union of Protestant Churches in Germany, or the German Medical Association, have not recommended removing Schiavo's feeding tube. Question of recovery divides "The patient's doctors are required to continue to treat her and to feed her, because it's not clear what will happen next with her illness," said Jörg-Dietrich Hoppe (photo, right), the head of the German Medical Association. Doctors consulted by Michael Schiavo have testified in court that Terri will never recover from her state -- in which she cannot think or speak and is unaware of her surroundings. Doctors brought by her parents disagree and say it would be against Terri's religion, as a Roman Catholic, to die this way. Hoppe said there have been cases "of people who lived for 20 years in a 'waking coma' and then later came back to consciousness. The patient is certainly not dead." Dutch pave way for euthanasia legalization Fifteen years ago, Holland had a case similar to Schiavo's, A judge allowed the husband of Ineke Stinissen, who had been in a coma for several years, to remove her feeding tube. She died of starvation, and her case paved the way for Holland's pro-euthanasia legislation. In Germany, Schiavo's case would have gone to court much in the same way it did in the US. German law forbids doctors to actively assist in a patient's suicide but allows them to passively allow death if the patient clearly wills it. But Ruth Mattheis, the former head of the medical association and a doctor for more than 50 years said she could not remember such a case every making it to trial. "Quite often, families addressed me and asked for help, mostly families who wanted to stop nutrition (where) the doctors opposed it," she said. "In such situations, I always tried to bring both parties together to find a solution." http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1526731,00.html

I worked for Kaiser and I have to say, it was one of the best places that I have ever worked at. I worked at both Kaiser Oakland and San Francisco. The pay was great, staffing was better than other facilities in the area, and I thought the patients received very good care. No, it wasn't perfect, but I would put Kaiser at the top of my list. And just to know, Kaiser has gone beyond the mandated ratio in many facilities and has a 1:4 on med/surg. They are at 1:5 in others.

As others have noted, there is something a bit "off" about your dilemma, Huladancer. According to the profile, you are 25 years old so have been living as an adult in the US for 7 years, illegally. Sorry, can't blame your parents for that. Why have you waited until now to deal with this? And I cannot figure out how you got into nursing school in the first place. What have you been doing for the past 7 years? Working illegally? Your only option is really to see an immigration lawyer as soon as possible. It will cost you some money but at this point, you really have no choice. You can't use the excuse that you were brought here as a minor, because you have continued to stay on, and not rectify your situation as an adult.

So now, what is the difference between given someone a fatal dose of morphine (to dying or vegetative patient) or removing a feeding tube, as in the case of Terri Schiavo? It's not like the patient is going to live if you stop feeding them, so it hardly seems like that is allowing a "natural death." I think it's more humane to give them the morphine, quite honestly, if you want to go that route. So what is the difference? Is one an "intentional act" and the other a "passive act?" Is letting someone die of starvation not considered euthanasia? It sure is in my book.

Patient. When I was in nursing school, I irritated the heck out of my instructors because I refused to use the word client. I told one of my teachers that when I hang out my own shingle, and people come to me for whatever it is I'm selling/offering, then they will be my clients. But for now, they are hospital patients. If I was in a hospital, I certainly would not like a nurse referring to me as her/his "client." Sorry, but I see this change in terminology as just one of the more senseless acts of stupidity in healthcare. There's no purpose to it, no reason for it.

Dubya supported the nurse reinvestment act, but like all of the other projects that he "supports," no money was allocated for it.

The only way to control healthcare costs is to have a comprehensive package. As I have said, along with others who posted, simply putting a cap on settlements is not going to automatically make insurers lower their rates. As I see it, putting a cap on settlements without insurance reform is the sweetest deal possible for insurance companies. They get to continue raising their rates, or at least, keep them the same, while at the same time, dramatically decrease pay-outs. We need to control pharmaceutical costs, the cost of a medical education (unless the military or a rich daddy pays for it, most docs come out of school about $100,000 in debt), and waste. We desperately need insurance reform. And we also need to reform our lawsuit happy culture. Measures such as responsibility for court costs whether you win or lose, or limiting the percentage that a lawyer can take as a fee. Or having lawsuits that go to court, decided upon by people educated in medicine ( a mixed panel of docs, nurses, etc, who are chosen by both sides). Having juries who know nothing about health or medicine is ludicrous. They almost always side with the plaintiff, because of the "heart tugs" and sob story. Even if that sob story was the plaintiff's fault, or no one's fault. I've seen parents sue over the birth of a baby with congenital anomalies, blaming the doctor and the NICU. Makes me want to gag. Anyway, our system needs a total revamping if we want to lower costs.

Definitely not, for all the reasons given already. I worked long and hard to get out of nursing, and as far as I can see, the situation is worsening and not getting better. I don't have any kids, but I certainly would never encourage either my niece or nephew to go into nursing. In fact, I would actively discourage them if they showed the slightest inkling towards it. But neither has the slightest interest in healthcare, so no need to worry. Plus they know that their aunt Roxanne is far happier away from nursing.

You will find out that you will have to forget most of what nursing school teaches you, if you hope to function in the real world of healthcare. That is, unless you plan to spend your entire career in academia, which is the only place you will need nursing diagnosis and goals. When I first started school, an instructor was giving one of our first lectures on goals. She said that a nurse begins her day by asking her client what goals he or she would like to work on that day. I rolled my eyes, and told the instructor that if I were a patient in the hospital, and a nurse came into my room calling me her client and asking what goals I wanted to work on that day, I would call security. Later on, another teacher, someone a bit more in touch with reality, told us that the only goal a patient has is to get the hell out of the hospital in one piece.

It sounds nice to wrap up our healthcare problems in one neat little package, and put the blame on one group of people. Trial lawyers are at fault and if we just cap settlements, all of our other problems will go away. Supporters of tort reform often point to California as a poster child, where tort reform was initiated. But what they conveniently ignore is that malpractice insurance premiums only stabilized once insurance reform laws were introduced. Tort reform, by itself, did nothing to control the skyrocketing rates of malpractice. Healthcare reform is complex and lacking in any magical solution, and certainly, the silver bullit does not exist. Instituting laws such as requiring plaintiff's to be responsible for court costs, whether or not they win, will defer some from frivilous lawsuits. Holding lawyers in contempt for taking on ridiculous suits in the first place is another. Reining in the cost of a medical education is an issue that is also conveniently ignored. How about taking on the price gouging by the pharmaceutical companies in this country, or their practice of trying to extend patents so as to keep the competition from offering lower prices? The list goes on and on and on... I agree that many settlements are ridiculous, but then, on the other hand, capping a settlement for a person who has suffered severe damage at the hands of a truly incompetent doctor or hospital is not fair either. And capping settlements without reforming our insurance industry does not require insurance companies to lower their premiums, or stop them from periodically raising them. In essence, what Bush is proposing is the best thing that insurance companies could ever hope for. Their payments will be limited, and yet they are still free to conduct business any way they please.

Everyone should enjoy what they do for a living, not just nurses. But unfortunately, I find more of the opposite to be true. Many people dislike, hate, or are bored with their work. It is sad that we spend such a big chunk of our lives doing something that is unfulfilling or despicable to us. That said, nursing is now being advertised as this opportunity of a lifetime. An awful lot of people are going into nursing, or thinking about it, because they've been laid off recently, and are thinking of nursing only in terms of job stability. I suppose if you are out of work, and hungry, and in danger of losing your home, then working "just for the money" is not a bad idea. But many have absolutely no idea what nursing is really about, and enter it blindfolded. As a result, I've been hearing that there is a large drop-out rate in many nursing programs. While the "calling" concept of nursing gives me the creeps (that goes with self-sacrificing martyr), nevertheless, going into nursing is just not the same as switching from IT to law, or law to accounting, or accounting to teaching. This is an entirely different realm, and not everyone can handle it. Some people make it through school and are absolutely miserable--not even because of all of the negatives they may face, but just from the work itself. But they may stick with hospital nursing anyway, because it pays better than other areas. The best combination is to do what you love and be well paid. In lieu of that, even though not every nurse loves nursing, the pay for nursing should be equal to comparable professions. And not to get off on this topic, but that is why I believe that nursing should have a BSN minimum, just like all other healthcare professions. Nurses also need better defined job descriptions--like, if you're willing to mop the floor and pull the trash, well, the hospital will pay you as such. A physical therapist, as an example, generally needs a MS degree now to practice. They have a well defined job, no one expects them to pull the linens and trash at the end of the shift, or to stock the supply cabinet. They are also paid better than nurses. Nursing needs to do the same. Set a standard minimum of education, one standard. Have a clearly defined, professional job description. And demand to be paid for it. I guarantee more nurses will not only work for the money, but begin to love jobs they may now hate, because professional elevation garners more respect and better treatment. If you want to work for love alone, then go do volunteer work. Become a missionary or enter a convent. But please don't keep trying to bring down the rest of nurses. Just because you care, doesn't mean you have to starve, or make do without a retirement fund, or be unable to save for your child's college education. Anyway, the attitude needs to change. As long as nurses say, "But I love what I do, money isn't everything..." well, then what hospital on this planet is going to argue with you?

So then perhaps nurses should work for free? Or just accept a pittance, and maybe some bread and water to live on? Does being a nurse mean one should not have a decent standard of living, or does being a nurse mean that you must be a self-sacrificing martyr? I'm sorry, but attitudes like your help keep nursing in the downtrodden state that it's in. Nurses have fought long and hard to get pay raises, improved working conditions, and so on. The profession does not need martyrs who feel that one can live by caring alone. Tell that to your landlord, or the store where you buy your food.

yes, they should be concerned about how much they will paid--and so should you. why should caring and being paid well be contradictory terms? why shouldn't people who work in a profession like nursing, where the work can be hard and dirty, and you are entrusted with the lives of so many, be paid poorly? why should nurses say, "oh, i'm in it for the caring and therefore it doesn't matter what they pay me. caring professions don't have to come with good pay." why should a baseball player make millions and a nurse make the same as a supermarket checker (yes, very true in some regions). if nursing was extremely well paid, and working conditions tolerable, then there wouldn't be these chronic shortages. there are many "caring" professions, and the people make a lot more money than nurses. sorry, but i just cannot stand the martyrish attitude about how "we're in it for the caring and not the money." hospitals encourage that attitude, it serves them well. but it surely doesn't help patients or nurses as a profession.

What about people who are disabled and can no longer work? If they are injured at work, like a lot of nurses. Or get sick with a debilitating illness? Many disabled people can do some kind of work, but often find it extremely difficult to get hired. So what about them? If they can't work, should they just be denied any sort of assistance? You have completely omitted this category of people. Same for the elderly. Should we do away with Medicare, if one is too old to work, or if someone can't find work because of their age? Not easy to get a good job at 89.

That moment came for me in 1997, when I said adios to hospital nursing. I said good bye to nursing completely (I was working in a corporate office doing telephone triage) right before Christmas, 1999. It was a new millennium gift to myself, to kiss all of the abuses of nursing good-bye!

There has been a chronic nursing shortage since WW II, that simply waxes and wanes in intensity. The main problem is that nothing ever changes. If nursing was such a wonderful profession, it would not be continually suffering from a lack of warm bodies. I should say, if working conditions weren't what they are, and have always been. The nursing shortage now really isn't any different from others, except that the demographics are changing somewhat. The Government Accounting Office has called this an "emerging shortage" meaning that there will be a real shortage if things don't change. We've got an older work force, the population at large is growing older and will need more care, and so on. But as of right now, this "shortage" is not any different. The 500,000 nurses are not working for a number of reasons, but they do represent almost 20% of the nursing population. Add to that number nurses who have left nurses and allowed their licenses to lapse. We don't have any statistics on them. But a number of surveys have showed that many of these "500,000" will return to the nursing workforce if working conditions. Even if 10% returned, that would be more than 50,000 nurses, enough to fill about one third or more of the vacancies, depending on whose statistics you read. The main problem is that nurses are leaving nursing at a rapid pace. The rate of nurses leaving the profession has increased over the past ten years. That is the problem, and they are leaving primarily because working condition stink. Yes, some just don't like nursing, but most can't deal with the working hours, conditions, management, and so on. Others leave the bedside but find other jobs in healthcare. However, the shortage is being most acutely felt in hospitals and LTC facilities, not in pharmaceutical sales, or case management. So I have to disagree emphatically with the above poster, but there is no real shortage--no more real than its ever been. Nursing can't keep its nurses working, primarily because of the work environment. It's been this way for decades, and unless some real changes are made, it will continue. And then as nurses start to retire, in addition to the ones escaping, and if not enough people enter nursing and STAY with it (I emphasize the word stay because so many seem to think that all we need do is just throw more warm bodies in), then we are in for a terrible shortage. More people have shown an interest in nursing over the past few years, but that is quite common in economic downturn. Healthcare jobs are stable and always seem more attractive. However, when the economy picks up, and new industries develop, then I highly doubt that this interest in nursing will remain--unless of course, nursing actually becomes a profession that is well paid, employees are treated well, have decent working hours and flexible schedules, are respected, can work in a safe environment, and are not dumped on to do everyone else's work. Then maybe nursing will hold its own in good times and bad, become a profession that is really in high demand, and only then will be see an end to nursing shortages. But to be honest, I just don't see that happening.