I truly can't fathom how generalization about people either way will make a difference.
There are compassionate nurses and compassionate docs, and there are those that really don't have a lot of compassion, understanding, insight, and listening abilities--both docs and nurses--and then there are a lot of people that fall in-between these two poles.
I mean the midlevel practice issue, at it's core, is about cutting costs and saving money. At the same time, schools everywhere are just psyched about all that they can make off of such problems. And if anyone really cared about real quality of turn-out--not mere dollars for schools or pushing an agenda, they would not be allowing nurses with very minimal experience entrance into advanced practice nursing programs.
But again, individuals are who they are regardless of if they go through MS programs or nursing programs. If anything, the crucible of each kind of program and practice will ultimately strengthen their underlying character or the programs and real life healthcare experiences will reveal their true characters.
I think one area in which we see where patients care not only about competence in practice but compassion is in the OBGYN field. Some women are hell-bent on having only female physicians--feeling they will be more compassionate, understanding, and it will be less embarrassing for them. But this is not necessarily true. Now, I am not saying there are not truly compassionate female OBGYNs. It's just for me, at least in my area, well, it's usually male OBGYNs that have been more compassionate, tender and not painful upon examination, and more active listeners, etc. And believe me, there have been a few male OBGYNs that I refused to see, b/c they were hurtful upon examination, and they didn't listen, and they just didn't have that sensitive nature women look for in an OBGYN. But remember, in my area at the time, 99% of the OBGYNs were male. So, the compassionate female OBGYNs with the tender touch and ability to actively listen and be sensitive, well, I never got a chance to meet them.
You just can't generalize. I look for certain characteristics regardless of gender, age, race, whatever. It's wrong to generalize. And I would add that it's also unfair to lead a campaign that implies one group of providers are "listeners," so the inference is that the other providers are not. That's really on the manipulative side.
Also, nursing is running off an older model where holistics in medicine were laughed at in education and practice, in general, and where the main focus was on the pathology and not the human being as a whole person--an individual, and there was a sense of distance from this approach. But medical education has improved to look more at the whole person. But the campaign is running off of older models and exploiting this. Actually, the psyh0-social dynamics of this is interesting.
But the other thing that must be considered is that in the educational process for nursing, a strong amount of emphasis is placed on active listening, compassion, avoiding judgment, and holistics. It's there in every course from fundamentals and onward. Now, some of this will just wash over some people, but the points are emphasized repeatedly in these programs. In medical school, there is so much focus on the science and such, that the position of the nursing profession is that holistic approach, active listening, etc is lost. In other words, it would tend to get lost in the great magnitude of material or in is not embedded deeply enough through each and every course in medical education. Again, I think MS programs have worked to try and change this. But the model in nursing begins and ends with the whole human being--not just pathologies. Hence to them, the use of the declarative, "We listen," is not necessarily manipulative. Perhaps nursing needs more education about the MS educational process and their programs. IDK.
Whatever, just sharing from the position I have seen. Regardless, generalizations suck.
