qualities"-which make the ideal nurse. What was needed was not only a technically capable nurse, but a woman who was able to take her proper place in the household of her patient and be a comfort and help in time of sorrow and sickness. It was feared that an intensified professional consciousness engendered by the "hall mark" of the State would have the opposite result. Some witnesses objected to making a three years' training compulsory for all nurses, on the ground that in a large hospital training school a nurse might, by having her work well distributed, gain adequate experience and training in a two years' course. Also, women with some knowledge of nursing, though not highly skilled, were useful for certain cases and acceptable to the public. It was contended that by prohibiting women nursing for gain, unless registered by the State, an injustice would be done to that useful and respectable class of person, "the woman to sit up," who is called in to relieve members of a family in time of sickness, by those who cannot pay the fees of a trained nurse. It was urged that much good work can be done by half-trained people provided that they do not attempt to pass themselves off as fully qualified. Some objections were also made to a compulsory three years' training, on the ground that it retarded the turning out of a sufficient supply of trained nurses to meet the public demand. Figures were given showing that St. Thomas's, the oldest training-school, and the London Hospital, the largest training-school, had, in the course of forty-three years, only certified two thousand three hundred and seventy-seven nurses, nearly half of whom had had one year's training, and a little more than half had had two years' training. Had those two hospitals enforced a three years' course, the output of nurses would have been considerably smaller. On the part of the general medical practitioner State registration was opposed, on the ground that, by giving an independent status to the nurse, she might become eventually a professional rival. In children's illnesses and the ailments of old people, a trained nurse might be employed to the exclusion of the doctor. The nurse might be encouraged to step outside her sphere and militate against medical practice. Those who were in favour of the system of registration established under the Midwives' Act, objected to the registration of sick nurses, on the ground that they were not practitioners independent of the doctor, as were certified midwives. The nurse worked entirely under the order of the medical man, and had no separate status which needed to be registered by the State. With regard to the registration and inspection of Nursing Homes, the OPPONENTS were much at one with the ADVOCATES of State Registration for Nurses. It was a matter for which the public required a legislative safeguard. In the foregoing we have endeavoured to set forth the salient points of both sides, but the résumé is not exhaustive. The Select Committee, amid many divergent views given in evidence, arrived at the conclusion that there was a general opinion in favour of some change in the conditions under which nursing is carried on. The Report sets forth in Clause 11, that "the Committee are agreed that it is desirable that a register of nurses should be kept by a central body appointed by the State, and that, while it is not desirable to prohibit unregistered persons from nursing for gain, no person should be entitled to assume the designation of registered nurse,' whose name is not upon the register.' It is further recommended that "the central body should consist of matrons, nurses, and representatives of the medical profession, of training-schools for nurses, and of the public; that the central body should decide what constitutes a recognized training-school for nurses, should have the power of inspection, and that the examination be held at the training-school; that the minimum period for training should not be fixed by Act of Parliament, but should be left to the discretion of the central body (admitting, however, that the great bulk of evidence points to three years as the requisite period of training); that there should be an annual publication of the register of nurses; that the central body should make provision for striking off the register the names of those nurses who have died or who have ceased nursing, and also of those nurses who, in the opinion of the central body, have been guilty of serious misconduct in the discharge of their duty, or of moral delinquency; that existing nurses who can produce satisfactory evidence as regards efficiency, and character should be placed upon the register on payment of the registration fee; that the latter should not exceed one guinea; that the central body, not later than four years after the passing of any Act for the registration of nurses, should submit a report to the Privy Council on the advisability of instituting a separate register of nurses, whose training is of a lower standard than that laid down for "registered nurses;" that a separate register of "registered asylum nurses should be kept by the central body, to which should be admitted those who have received the certificate of the Medico-Psychological Association, and can produce satisfactory certificates of good character. Lastly, the committee recommended the licensing of Nursing Homes, where patients are taken for treatment, as highly desirable, and that the county, or county borough authority, should be empowered to draft regulations to be approved by the Local Government Board. Deputations representing the advocates and the opponents of State Registration have since waited upon Lord Crewe, the Lord President of the Privy Council, to lay their views before him. On March 8, 1906, Mr. H. J. Tennant, M.P., late Chairman of the Select Committee, introduced an influential deputation in favour of registration to the Earl of Crewe at the Privy Council Office. On June 14th, a deputation introduced by Mr. H. A. Harben and the Hon. Sydney Holland, chairman • From the London Central Hospital Committee, N of the London Hospital, Sir Thomas Barlow, and Sir Frederick Treves, waited upon Lord Crewe to represent that the Government should not support State registration, as there was no concensus of opinion by medical men or the public on the matter. The Lord President of the Council-to summarize his replies to both deputationssaid that the question of the State registration of nurses was a matter of national importance, and that it could not be long before the subject occupied the serious attention of Parliament, but that the Government programme was very full, and the matter could not be dealt with this session. The British Medical Association, at its annual meeting, 1906, passed an almost unanimous vote in favour of the principle of State registration of nurses. Meantime, the Royal British Nurses' Association and the Society for the State Registration of Trained Nurses have been redrafting their Parliamentary Bills to bring them more into line with the recommendations of the select committee, and their respective supporters are continuing their propaganda. The Central Hospital Council have also drafted a Bill which they propose to lay before Parliament, and in which they advocate the establishment of a nurses' register or directory to be kept by an official registrar, instead of State registration. THE END PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES. |