MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2036729285 · doi:10.1891/1062-8061.15.155

Florence Nightingale’s Opposition to State Registration of Nurses

2007· article· en· W2036729285 sur OpenAlexaff
Carol Helmstadter

Notice bibliographique

RevueNursing History Review · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReactionaryOpposition (politics)LawNominationState (computer science)BiographySociologyPsychologyNursingMedicinePolitical sciencePolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

It is well known that Florence Nightingale strongly opposed state registration for nurses. Her opposition is usually treated in the standard literature as reactionary and dismissed in a few paragraphs. For example, Dock and Stewart wrote in 1931 that, when state registration was first publicly broached in 1887, Nightingale had reached the point where the old cannot go on with the young, adding that no doubt her years of seclusion made it difficult for her to realize the newer conditions.1 Nightingale was actually sixty-seven years old in 1887. In this article, I argue that although Nightingale did adhere to an older ideal of nursing as a religious vocation, a view that was becoming less acceptable to young women in the 1890s, she was a lady of extraordinary perspicacity and had many reasons for opposing state registration that were realistic, well informed, and intelligent. First and foremost, Nightingale understood that nurses in the late 1880s and 1890s were simply not educated well enough to be registered as a profession. second, the proponents of state registration wanted to exclude working-class nurses and make nursing a profession for ladies only. Nightingale believed many of the most competent nurses were working-class women. Third, she believed the campaign leaders did not distinguish adequately between medicine and nursing and were placing nursing under the control of medical men. Fourth, she found the state registration proposal for credentialing inadequate. Finally, she was distressed by the dishonesty and lack of professional ethic on the part of the campaign's leaders. Throughout the whole debate, Nightingale's focus would be on clinical competence and expertise, while the state registration party would focus on improving the social status of nurses. The Campaign for State Registration The British Nurses Association Ethel Bedford Fenwick, former matron of St. Bartholomew s Hospital, led the lobby that was pushing for state registration. Bedford Fenwick was a flamboyant, ambitious, and competent person who had been a great success as matron and would later become the primary founder of the International Council of Nurses. Full of spirit and with a will of steel, she was rich, well educated, and beautiful,2 but Dr. Norman Moore, who taught the course on medical nursing at St. Bartholomew's, believed her to be unscrupulous and wanting in honor. One of the City of London companies had given the hospital a prize to be awarded to the probationer who achieved the highest score on her final exams. By the late 1880s, these companies, descendants of the medieval guilds, were largely charitable organizations that supported community activities. Bedford Fenwick waited until she had seen the marks the doctors gave each nurse, and then added marks for good conduct to those of her favorite nurse so as to give her the top score. The case was so flagrant, Moore said, that the doctors asked the company for another equal prize. Nightingale was not certain that Bedford Fenwick's addition of points for conduct was wrong. Perhaps a matron would be right, she commented. A St. Bartholomew's nurse had told her that if any nurse did something wrong, Bedford Fenwick was sure to know about it before the next morning. All satisfactory evidence is that Mrs. Fenwick was unscrupulous but generally right, Nightingale concluded.3 In 1887, Bedford Fenwick and a group of matrons, including Catherine J. Wood, former matron of the Hospital for Sick Children in Great Ormond Street, founded the British Nurses Association (BNA), the organization that would lobby for state registration. Wood would become Bedford Fenwick's second-in-command in the early years of the campaign. Wood, Mr. William Scovell Savory, one of the consulting surgeons at St. Bartholomew's, and Dr. Bedford Fenwick, Ediel's husband, began furiously canvassing Nightingale to join. Wood also told Lucille Pringle, matron of St. Thomas's, that she was bound in honor to become a member. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,984
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,104

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0160,012
Communication savante0,0070,004
Science ouverte0,0020,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0100,018
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,124
Tête enseignante GPT0,326
Écart entre enseignants0,201 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNursing History ReviewMême sujetHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesTravaux en français237 207