It is my adorably optimistic aim to read a book a week over these 8 weeks off. On average, since some weeks won't involve anything near a book.
Last week I finished:
TRANSCULTURAL CONCEPTS In Nursing Care: Second Edition (1995)by Margaret M. Andrews and Joyceen S. Boyle, J.B. Lippincott Company: Philadelphia
On the plus side I received this book as a gift, which means it's all mine. That gives me the option to underline, note and scribble endlessly in it, which is one of my guiltishly geeky pleasures.
So, what's it like? Well, it was a gift. I would not have bought this book, personally. It's old (most of the sources are from the 80s, making their reliability and relevance questionable) and American, which means it refers to processes and - more importantly - cultures and sub-cultures which are not very prevalent in this country. I am, for example, unfortunately not going to meet many Native Americans in my neck of the woods. Whereas I am statistically more likely to look after men and women of Arab descent, a culture not greatly covered in the book.
So it has it's down sides. Generally, if taken with a pinch of NHS salt the book is an interesting and valuable insight into the ideas behind transcultural nursing and does provide a few relevant examples that prove useful. Did you know, for example, that people of Asian descent find blowing one's nose to be rude, and consider sniffling more polite? Interesting stuff.
Would I recommend this book? To check out from the library, certainly, but not to buy. There may also be a later edition or even a British analogue out there which would be a much more sensible idea. Most certainly better than a kick in the teeth, though.
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
Magicoreligious Madness
The recent story of the Sikh girl who won the right to wear a piece of jewellery in opposition to school rules was always going to get a comment out of me.
As evident by the prominent link to a certain Church on my blog front, I don't hold religion is particularly high regard. Not to say I don't have faith, which I do, or I don't see a point in believing in something or than deterministic, reductionist science. I don't consider faith the be all and end all of existence in the same sense that science does not explain everything, however some people on either side of this invisible border between the two continue to have irritating effects on society. A society which is, apparently, looked after by a secular government.
The school in question was running a 'No Jewellery' policy. This in itself is not uncommon from schools I have both attended and worked in. I gather such policies are conducted for several reasons. Firstly, jewellery can cause jealous and envy, which have further follow on and side effects. Secondly, jewellery can cause problems with local health and safety policies (hoop earrings being pulled out - not pretty). Thirdly, some schools employ a uniform policy in an attempt to make children feel smart and equal to each other. Accessories put a dint into this, unfortunately. I don't agree with taking away people's individuality ala uniform policy, but it is a rule in many schools and was in this one, for (debatably) good reason. Rules are rules, and - made to be broken or not - are enforced, and should be if that's what the school board has agreed. Furthermore, the student in question signed a contract saying she would abide by said rules. I'm sure it wasn't a blood-legal document, but still an agreement.
Thus, she was breaking school rules. And anyone breaking rules is usually reprimanded. She continued to break the rules, she continued to be reprimanded. Until she went into the Court system and received what could be described as special dispensation to break the rules of the school. This special dispensation happened because what she was breaking the rules wearing is an accessory of magicoreligious importance. Despite the fact that it is going against the grain of all three of the above points of the rule.
This is particularly annoying. Schoolchildren comprise a diverse mix of cultures and subcultures who are different in physical appearance and psychological standpoint and belief, including any spiritual or magicoreligious standing. For some children, music is king. It's the most important thing in their lives. Listening to it, reading about it, following the tenets set out by the leading stars. And yet they are not allowed to express this through accessories on uniforms. Piercings and eyeliner, for one example, are disallowed. Yet a Sikh bangle has been given special dispensation (thankfully, the Fundamentalist 'SilverRingThing' was thrown out of the courts last year. I almost had a little party in celebration).
So, the crux of the matter is: where do we draw the line? This is not a secular society, so one belief should not receive more privileges than an other. Clearly, Sikhism has existed for a much longer duration and has a larger following than some Gothic music subculture, as hinted at in the example above. But does that automatically make it more important? What about a young black child who is celebrating his or her ethnic or racial links or roots by wearing a certain accessory to their uniform? Is this aspect of colonialism and it's aftermath less or more important than a religion. Where is the line drawn?
My standpoint is that mentioned above. As long as Britain remains a secular country then religion should not get any leg-ups. There are many schoolchildren who believe in fashions or trends just as vehemently as a religion, and yet they're not allowed to express themselves within the gates of a school. Their treatment shouldn't be so unfair.
As evident by the prominent link to a certain Church on my blog front, I don't hold religion is particularly high regard. Not to say I don't have faith, which I do, or I don't see a point in believing in something or than deterministic, reductionist science. I don't consider faith the be all and end all of existence in the same sense that science does not explain everything, however some people on either side of this invisible border between the two continue to have irritating effects on society. A society which is, apparently, looked after by a secular government.
The school in question was running a 'No Jewellery' policy. This in itself is not uncommon from schools I have both attended and worked in. I gather such policies are conducted for several reasons. Firstly, jewellery can cause jealous and envy, which have further follow on and side effects. Secondly, jewellery can cause problems with local health and safety policies (hoop earrings being pulled out - not pretty). Thirdly, some schools employ a uniform policy in an attempt to make children feel smart and equal to each other. Accessories put a dint into this, unfortunately. I don't agree with taking away people's individuality ala uniform policy, but it is a rule in many schools and was in this one, for (debatably) good reason. Rules are rules, and - made to be broken or not - are enforced, and should be if that's what the school board has agreed. Furthermore, the student in question signed a contract saying she would abide by said rules. I'm sure it wasn't a blood-legal document, but still an agreement.
Thus, she was breaking school rules. And anyone breaking rules is usually reprimanded. She continued to break the rules, she continued to be reprimanded. Until she went into the Court system and received what could be described as special dispensation to break the rules of the school. This special dispensation happened because what she was breaking the rules wearing is an accessory of magicoreligious importance. Despite the fact that it is going against the grain of all three of the above points of the rule.
This is particularly annoying. Schoolchildren comprise a diverse mix of cultures and subcultures who are different in physical appearance and psychological standpoint and belief, including any spiritual or magicoreligious standing. For some children, music is king. It's the most important thing in their lives. Listening to it, reading about it, following the tenets set out by the leading stars. And yet they are not allowed to express this through accessories on uniforms. Piercings and eyeliner, for one example, are disallowed. Yet a Sikh bangle has been given special dispensation (thankfully, the Fundamentalist 'SilverRingThing' was thrown out of the courts last year. I almost had a little party in celebration).
So, the crux of the matter is: where do we draw the line? This is not a secular society, so one belief should not receive more privileges than an other. Clearly, Sikhism has existed for a much longer duration and has a larger following than some Gothic music subculture, as hinted at in the example above. But does that automatically make it more important? What about a young black child who is celebrating his or her ethnic or racial links or roots by wearing a certain accessory to their uniform? Is this aspect of colonialism and it's aftermath less or more important than a religion. Where is the line drawn?
My standpoint is that mentioned above. As long as Britain remains a secular country then religion should not get any leg-ups. There are many schoolchildren who believe in fashions or trends just as vehemently as a religion, and yet they're not allowed to express themselves within the gates of a school. Their treatment shouldn't be so unfair.
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
New Laws
New laws, championed by Harriet Harmann and pushed by the British Law System, are attempting to liberalise the laws surrounding murder.
To be perfectly honest, I haven't researched this topic in an intense manner, but I have listened to various viewpoints and I am, perhaps unsurprisingly, against such a change. There are already bits and pieces within the law to allow defences like self defence to be used in the case or murder. And judges are, or should be, more than capable at managing these laws effectively.
The history of governments (and I know the supporters say this rule change has nothing to do with government, but that's bollocks) meddling with laws are dodgy at best. The recent decision to mess with anonymous witness schemes within murder trails hasn't helped one bit, now, has it?
Now, of course, we live in a "democracy". But there are plenty of people who haven't been voted into any seat of power who make decisions. And these men and women are the ones who annoy me most. That's an aside, I know, but a necessary one.
Anyway, what else is wrong with this law? I don't particularly like the wording. "Seriously wronged"? That could be taken in so many ways it's not even funny. Especially when you bring cultural, social and magicoreligious reasons. That's got trouble written through it like a stick of Blackpool rock.
Aside from that, the way in which the media is reporting the law is considerably biased towards to women suffering abuse. This is undoubtedly a problem, but just because female/male-on-male is statistically lower than the media published male-on-female domestic abuse doesn't mean it's any less important. And when one of the founders of a rather large Women's Refuge is criticising the government for gender bias and being both naive and short sighted, something's gotta be wrong.
To be perfectly honest, I haven't researched this topic in an intense manner, but I have listened to various viewpoints and I am, perhaps unsurprisingly, against such a change. There are already bits and pieces within the law to allow defences like self defence to be used in the case or murder. And judges are, or should be, more than capable at managing these laws effectively.
The history of governments (and I know the supporters say this rule change has nothing to do with government, but that's bollocks) meddling with laws are dodgy at best. The recent decision to mess with anonymous witness schemes within murder trails hasn't helped one bit, now, has it?
Now, of course, we live in a "democracy". But there are plenty of people who haven't been voted into any seat of power who make decisions. And these men and women are the ones who annoy me most. That's an aside, I know, but a necessary one.
Anyway, what else is wrong with this law? I don't particularly like the wording. "Seriously wronged"? That could be taken in so many ways it's not even funny. Especially when you bring cultural, social and magicoreligious reasons. That's got trouble written through it like a stick of Blackpool rock.
Aside from that, the way in which the media is reporting the law is considerably biased towards to women suffering abuse. This is undoubtedly a problem, but just because female/male-on-male is statistically lower than the media published male-on-female domestic abuse doesn't mean it's any less important. And when one of the founders of a rather large Women's Refuge is criticising the government for gender bias and being both naive and short sighted, something's gotta be wrong.
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Joined Up Thinking
This article made me giggle. The following paragraph in particular:
The concept of equal funding is a good and relevant one. The idea of somehow trying to influence the genders of sports leaders stinks of positive discrimination from the outset, but we'll see. My main problem is with the media point. Linking sexism to media coverage is spurious at best, bollocks at worst. Sport is a business. From the selling of equipment to the screening of matches/exhibitions on television, it's all about the money. Consumerism and shareholders etc.
Now, I could walk down a high street and run a quick survey on how much window space is given to male clothing vs. female clothing. I daresay the ratio would lie quite heavily in the female front. Are men being deprived of opportunities to express themselves through fashion? Perhaps. Why are these shops selling predominantly female clothing? Because it will make them more money. The 16-40 year old demographic probably spend more money on clothes than anyone. That's just capitalist good sense.
Open the back pages of a newspaper and you will probably be greeted with information (depending on the time of year) about football, rugby, cricket. Maybe some horseracing. Different times of the year will mean there is more coverage of certain sports. Cycling during Tour De France. Athletics during the Olympics or other big Championships. These subjects are clearly of interest of sports fans, otherwise they wouldn't get past the editor. Where does the big money lie in sport? Generally, lots of money is bet on horseracing, football and greyhounds. These fans, betting or not, also pay good money to watch their sports. Lots of people watch rubgy and cricket, additionally, and pay for the privilege. Greyhounds aside, the stars of these sports are all male. If the interest is in predominantly male sports, the money will go there, including in the media. This is simple consumerism, and I don't see how it relates directly to sexism in the sense they mean. If it does, then I hope to see a commission set up to tackle the discrepancies between male and female clothing choices on the average high street, too.
The areas that the audit has looked at include leadership (only four out of 35 British National Governing Bodies of sport has a female chief executive), media coverage (there is more than 50 times as much coverage in the media for men's sport than there is for women's, with only two per cent of articles and one per cent of images devoted to elite female athletes and women's sport) and investment in sport, which looks at the split in funding of men's and women's sports.
The concept of equal funding is a good and relevant one. The idea of somehow trying to influence the genders of sports leaders stinks of positive discrimination from the outset, but we'll see. My main problem is with the media point. Linking sexism to media coverage is spurious at best, bollocks at worst. Sport is a business. From the selling of equipment to the screening of matches/exhibitions on television, it's all about the money. Consumerism and shareholders etc.
Now, I could walk down a high street and run a quick survey on how much window space is given to male clothing vs. female clothing. I daresay the ratio would lie quite heavily in the female front. Are men being deprived of opportunities to express themselves through fashion? Perhaps. Why are these shops selling predominantly female clothing? Because it will make them more money. The 16-40 year old demographic probably spend more money on clothes than anyone. That's just capitalist good sense.
Open the back pages of a newspaper and you will probably be greeted with information (depending on the time of year) about football, rugby, cricket. Maybe some horseracing. Different times of the year will mean there is more coverage of certain sports. Cycling during Tour De France. Athletics during the Olympics or other big Championships. These subjects are clearly of interest of sports fans, otherwise they wouldn't get past the editor. Where does the big money lie in sport? Generally, lots of money is bet on horseracing, football and greyhounds. These fans, betting or not, also pay good money to watch their sports. Lots of people watch rubgy and cricket, additionally, and pay for the privilege. Greyhounds aside, the stars of these sports are all male. If the interest is in predominantly male sports, the money will go there, including in the media. This is simple consumerism, and I don't see how it relates directly to sexism in the sense they mean. If it does, then I hope to see a commission set up to tackle the discrepancies between male and female clothing choices on the average high street, too.
Just a quick one...
... about a fucking important subject. I cannot convey how delighted I am at the sight of more publicity for prostate cancer. Like cancer of the bowels, cancer of the prostate is not glamorous. There are no large-scale marathons of men in blue t-shirts running around to make money for the cause. Hell, ask a man in the street where his prostate is and he might reply like an American looking for Afghanistan on a globe. Despite the fact that Bob Monkhouse campaigned against the killer (from beyond the grave, to boot, bless him), not many - and not nearly enough - people know about this vicious strain of cancer. Or knew about it until the new stories of this new possible treatment for it came around. Now it has made it's way into the media spotlight, it's possible some men might actually think about getting themselves checked out for this horrible, despicable condition. And that, in my book, is a silver lining.
The Second Year
We had our first briefing for the second year and goddamn I am excited about it. Despite the fact that there's still going to be lots of happy-clappy-client Mental Health input (I'd say no offence to any Mental Branch readers, but there's no nice way to phrase my contempt for the way Anytown University handles our other branch exposure).
Firstly, we're no longer within Common Foundation learning, which means things are going to get more hardcore from now on. Welcome to big school.
Secondly, the assessments actually sound quite fun. One presentation, which should be a good giggle, and one unseen problem-solving-trigger-type exam. Varied, I like it.
The modules are a mix of exciting and twee. The twee one is all about Health Promotion, which is certainly interesting at points, but similarly quite wet and happy-clappy throughout. I'm not taking anything away from the role of the nurse as a health promoter, but I have a feeling the module is going to be similar to past ones. We'll see. The sister module is about acute and critical nursing, which is what I go to school for. The clinical skills classes should actually be interesting, the sessions are all about relevant skillsets and situations. Yes, we're actually going to be faced with theoretical clinical situations and instructed on relevant care and issues surrounding them. Something sorely lacking in the last few modules.
We have two weeks, one in placement, about Mother and Baby. Given I was close to being a midwife or child brancher, this will be very interesting, especially from a gender discrimination point of view. I think we're also due two days to drive around in an ambulance, which has me quite chomping at the bit.
I'm excited. But, to be prepared, this summer is going to involve a whole lot of reading. Given I'm going to be poor, that shouldn't be a problem. Woop.
Firstly, we're no longer within Common Foundation learning, which means things are going to get more hardcore from now on. Welcome to big school.
Secondly, the assessments actually sound quite fun. One presentation, which should be a good giggle, and one unseen problem-solving-trigger-type exam. Varied, I like it.
The modules are a mix of exciting and twee. The twee one is all about Health Promotion, which is certainly interesting at points, but similarly quite wet and happy-clappy throughout. I'm not taking anything away from the role of the nurse as a health promoter, but I have a feeling the module is going to be similar to past ones. We'll see. The sister module is about acute and critical nursing, which is what I go to school for. The clinical skills classes should actually be interesting, the sessions are all about relevant skillsets and situations. Yes, we're actually going to be faced with theoretical clinical situations and instructed on relevant care and issues surrounding them. Something sorely lacking in the last few modules.
We have two weeks, one in placement, about Mother and Baby. Given I was close to being a midwife or child brancher, this will be very interesting, especially from a gender discrimination point of view. I think we're also due two days to drive around in an ambulance, which has me quite chomping at the bit.
I'm excited. But, to be prepared, this summer is going to involve a whole lot of reading. Given I'm going to be poor, that shouldn't be a problem. Woop.
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
Stating the Blinking Obvious (tm)
I am convinced that one day, in Anytown University somewhere I will accidentally walk into the wrong class. This hypothetical classroom is filled with old women. There is a quite normal person stood in front of them, unable to use the PowerPoint presentation they should be trained to use. Each old woman has an egg placed in front of her, and is being taught to suck it.
What has prompted this extended metaphor, you ask? Today we had a semi-lecture (which is like a lecture, but not in the safe, anonymous environment of a real lecture theatre where one can sleep/read/otherwise not pay attention. The seminar was about the important of spirituality in patient/client life. Firstly, given the guest speaker was from a hospice, I thought it might be stealth religion talk. But no, nothing so insipid.
It turns out that spirituality means... well... everything. Pretty stupid fucking definition, really. The importance of everything to the patient/client. Everything is, by definition, the be all and end all. This glorious definition kicked off a close to 2-hour extravaganza in which we were told many things.
Newsflash!: Some patients need a bit of company, and to be listened to.
Breaking News!: Nurses should be considerate.
I know. Revelations. Well, actually: no. These are things we were bombarded with through our first module. And ever since, really.
I'm not being funny, but if you don't know the basic parts of the nursing skillbase after three placements, you've either had a sheltered year or are as empathic as a plank of wood.
The whole pointless session was topped off by another repition of the poem by the Crabby Old Woman. For the non-nurses out there (it seems like the law of the land that students or workers of this caste called nursing must have it thrust in their faces every three months by my reckoning) this poem can be found: here. It's far too passée for me to copy and paste it onto my lovely blog. The context of the poem is obviously a sad one, but one reading is painfully sufficient.
Yes, I am being cynical. But I'm being clinical, too. In ages gone by, maybe nurses had time to sit all day with patients having a chin wag. The guest speaker was a hospice nurse, which meant they had this added time outside of a clinical environment. Modern, ward-based nurses don't have this luxury. On top of that, modern nurses are shouldered with delicious clinical skills and responsibility. Not to mention overworked. I appreciated the sentiment from twee and wet lecturers that we should never forget the patient in the job, but in a way it's quite offensive. If was ever close to being a box ticker of a nurse I'd get out of the job sharpish. The concept of forgetting that a person is a person is so arse-backwards, the fact that I'm being pre-emptively accused of it is insulting.
What has prompted this extended metaphor, you ask? Today we had a semi-lecture (which is like a lecture, but not in the safe, anonymous environment of a real lecture theatre where one can sleep/read/otherwise not pay attention. The seminar was about the important of spirituality in patient/client life. Firstly, given the guest speaker was from a hospice, I thought it might be stealth religion talk. But no, nothing so insipid.
It turns out that spirituality means... well... everything. Pretty stupid fucking definition, really. The importance of everything to the patient/client. Everything is, by definition, the be all and end all. This glorious definition kicked off a close to 2-hour extravaganza in which we were told many things.
Newsflash!: Some patients need a bit of company, and to be listened to.
Breaking News!: Nurses should be considerate.
I know. Revelations. Well, actually: no. These are things we were bombarded with through our first module. And ever since, really.
I'm not being funny, but if you don't know the basic parts of the nursing skillbase after three placements, you've either had a sheltered year or are as empathic as a plank of wood.
The whole pointless session was topped off by another repition of the poem by the Crabby Old Woman. For the non-nurses out there (it seems like the law of the land that students or workers of this caste called nursing must have it thrust in their faces every three months by my reckoning) this poem can be found: here. It's far too passée for me to copy and paste it onto my lovely blog. The context of the poem is obviously a sad one, but one reading is painfully sufficient.
Yes, I am being cynical. But I'm being clinical, too. In ages gone by, maybe nurses had time to sit all day with patients having a chin wag. The guest speaker was a hospice nurse, which meant they had this added time outside of a clinical environment. Modern, ward-based nurses don't have this luxury. On top of that, modern nurses are shouldered with delicious clinical skills and responsibility. Not to mention overworked. I appreciated the sentiment from twee and wet lecturers that we should never forget the patient in the job, but in a way it's quite offensive. If was ever close to being a box ticker of a nurse I'd get out of the job sharpish. The concept of forgetting that a person is a person is so arse-backwards, the fact that I'm being pre-emptively accused of it is insulting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
