Professional regulation. Part 9: politics and ideology in nursing.

This article aims to continue the debate that surrounds nurse education and possible career structures. By reviewing two documents produced by the Department of Health and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, this article is concerned with one question: should nurses be free to decide their own career progression, or should they be compelled into the areas that the Government deem necessary to meet the demands of the populace? The answer this article produces is that no clear picture emerges. It becomes apparent that other, more powerful evidence may be in play, and that reference to other documents and political influences is needed; a review of this literature will be undertaken in the next article.

Professional regulation in nursing. Part 1: an introduction.

The preceding articles in this series have addressed the issues that surround the legal principle of owing a duty of care to people. The articles discussed the underlying concept of the application of 'standards' to a nurse's duty to people. Nurses owe to their patients and clients a duty that is underpinned not only by law (or legal principles) but also by reference to a more overtly political understanding. The purpose of this cluster of articles is try to identify how the Government has achieved its purpose of increasing the protection of the public (its underlying rationale for the changes brought to the health care professions). It is intended to approach this subject in a two-fold way: first, a descriptive perusal of government literature will be undertaken; second, in an chronological way, the responses from the health profession's regulatory bodies will be elucidated by way of analysis.

Best interests. An holistic approach: Part 2(b).

In the last article principles and guidelines were discussed that related to the ways in which nurses have to work with the best interests of their patients in mind. Where a person is ordinarily capable of consenting to or refusing to consent to, a proposed course of treatment or care but has temporarily lost that capacity, there are certain legal guidelines to follow to ensure that the minimum interventions occur until the person regains their capacity to act in their own interests. However, also highlighted was that that certain people have never attained capacity, or do not yet have capacity or have lost capacity on a permanent basis. For these people, there are legal principles that are incorporated in the Mental Capacity Act and these have to be abided by. This article is dedicated to a review of the situation where, sadly, a person has been assessed as not being legally competent to make their own health decisions. However, where a programme of treatment and care has been clinically proposed, the person refuses to co-operate. The situation of enforced treatment and care is a delicate one. Staff have to be aware of the legal principles that apply, with reference to the Mental Capacity Act.