Buddhism and Nursing the Authors

Buddhism and Nursing

The authors stated that "the focus of Logical Positivism... has led societies into a form of scientific ethnocentrism, with Western science serving as the standard against which all other knowledge forms are compared. What is meant by scientific ethnocentrism? Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Why?

Scientific ethnocentrism essentially creates a view of knowledge with science at the center. In short, it places scientific knowledge in a position of superiority over other types of knowledge. I believe it is fair to state, at least in American society, that a sense of scientific ethnocentrism exists. It is quite common for Americans to attribute various advantages of American society, such as a higher standard of living and longer life span, to scientific and technological superiority. There is an inherent American belief that, through the acquisition of more knowledge, we can build, cure or explain anything. We take pride in our scientific sense of knowing, as opposed to, perhaps, a society where spiritual ethnocentrism might be dominant.

For example, we may hypothesize that the highly religious Tibet may be spiritually advanced compared to American society, but, as Americans, we tend to look at Tibet and other nations through a scientific (or more specifically, technological) lens. We look at things like the lack of technology and the poor availability of modern amenities, because our worldview is dominated by scientific ethnocentrism.

The authors also stated that nursing has been dominated by Western ideology. Critique this statement by taking the opposing view and explaining the opposing view. Cite examples from nursing practice.

I think Rodgers and Yen send a very mixed message on whether nursing has been dominated by Western ideology, and, in fact, provide a good deal of information to help establish that there is no such domination. More than once in their research, Rodgers and Yen point out how nursing scholars have "worked diligently to promote nursing as 'science,'" rightly stating that this has been an uphill battle (Rodgers and Yen, 214). Logically, we can not state that nursing has been dominated by Western scientific ethnocentrism, and then claim that it is not universally viewed as science.

Rodgers and Yen do establish that nursing is tinged with elements of Eastern philosophy. They talk about the 'art' of nursing, which can encompass everything from organizational skills to the ability to interact well with patients, which are clearly not science but still incredibly important to the nursing profession (Rodgers and Yen, 214). Further, Rodgers and Yen discuss treatments such as alternative therapies, interventions and even health education that nurses use to help individuals better care for themselves (Rodgers and Yen, 218-220). This is in line with the Buddhist notion that people are often the root of their own suffering and can be taught how to keep themselves more healthy, physically and spiritually (Rodgers and Yen, 217). In conclusion, nursing has not been definitively defined as science, which stunts our ability to look at it through a completely Western worldview. On the other hand, elements of Eastern philosophy are clearly present.

The authors maintained that the goals and essence of nursing are more consistent with Buddhist thought than with Western thought. Do you agree or disagree with this? Cite examples from nursing practice to support your position.

I think it is impossible to say that the goals of nursing are more consistent with Buddhist thought than Western thought, even though elements of Buddhist thought are clearly present. It is probably more appropriate to say that both schools of thought equally impact nursing. As I have demonstrated in the previous question, it is impossible to say that Western scientific ethnocentrism dominates nursing, because there are clearly critical elements of nursing that are not scientific. But Buddhism also provides an incomplete solution for looking at nursing. A Buddhist believes that much of a person's suffering is internal in nature and personal responsibility is the key to healthier lives (Rodgers and Yen, 219). In this view, the role of the nurse may be to help people better care for themselves and understand how their behaviors negatively affect their health.

Such a philosophy would certainly work well with smokers, drug users and even people who are overweight. But that does not account for the entirety of the sick population. Children get cancer through no fault of their own; adults develop debilitating conditions for no other reason than genetics. People get hit by cars and stray bullets. Personal responsibility only gets us halfway there, and sometimes it is simply critical that science, technology and medicine provide the dominant pathway to healing. So, in cases where a nurse is helping overweight people take better care of themselves and ease the strain on their hearts, there is an element of Buddhist personal responsibility. But in cases where personal responsibility is not an issue (at least not for the origin of the illness), science could understandably play a more dominant role.

How would a nurse researcher with an Eastern/Buddhist worldview study nursing? What types of studies would be consistent with a Buddhist approach? Provide an example of a nursing research study that is consistent with a Buddhist worldview.

A nurse researcher with an Eastern/Buddhist worldview might believe that the most critical element of nursing is to help people help themselves, to end their dukkha, or suffering (Rodgers and Yen, 216). The types of studies that would be consistent with a Buddhist approach would include studies where nurses counseled patients on the type of environmental or lifestyle factors that were contributing to illness. A good example might involve two groups of people at risk for heart disease (perhaps they are classified as obese and/or have a family history of heart disease). One group would receive regular counseling from nurses on lifestyle changes that can improve health, and the other would not. Then, we would look at outcomes for both groups, in terms of overall health, length of life, etc.

Rahel Naef is a good example of a nursing researcher who brings an Eastern worldview to her research. Naef talks about a critical part of nursing being the ability to almost internalize another person's suffering as a means to understanding illness and assisting the person (Naef, 2006).

The authors cite Hume as providing a foundation for nursing science that is linear and therefore opposed to an Eastern view of nursing. A critique of this view, however, finds that Hume's view of the self is consistent with Buddhism. Which is it? Are there connections between traditional Western views of science and Buddhism? Explain.

Clearly there are connections between traditional Western views of science and Buddhism. To put the matter simply, both have the goal of helping people live better, healthier lives. And while Buddhism takes a spiritual approach to helping people become healthier, those methods are not completely divorced from science. Science certainly recognizes that suffering and illness are often self-inflicted, which is why physicians and other scientists fought for warnings on cigarette packages and alcohol. Nurses and doctors also regularly counsel patients on issues such as their weight, and how lifestyle changes (such as dieting) can lead to better health. There is recognition in both Buddhism and science that people, to some extent, can control the state of their health.