An Integral Part of the Life of the Sanitarium Worker Group
How can we make our denominational principles and standards an integral part of the life of the student nurse, and of the entire worker group? This is somewhat like asking how we can make Christians out of our workers. And really the only approach to a problem like this is to assume that those student nurses and the entire worker group are Christians when they enter the institution.
Our institutions differ radically from the institutions of the world—not in the manner of construction of buildings or the type of work we carry on, but in the principles that guide us in our work. There is something unique, something distinctive, about the principles that characterize—or should characterize—a Seventh-day Adventist medical institution. Now, when I say that, I am not speaking of the principles that govern the practice of medicine, but of other, higher, spiritual principles that must ever be found exemplified in our institutions.
I would like to suggest, first of all, that we exercise greater care in the people we receive into our institutions—both student nurses and others. There are many disappointments and trials to be met in our institutions; therefore it is very important that those called to have a part in the work have a real Christian experience before they come. We should not admit them on the assumption that after they come they will become converted.
One of the most helpful ways in bringing about a high spiritual standard in our institutions is through the avenue of instruction. When the student nurse first comes to the institution, she knows nothing whatever of nursing, and has to be instructed. I can illustrate this need of instruction by an experience of mine. I was traveling about in the field, and one day while riding along on the bus I became conscious of a pain in my foot. I discovered that I had an infection—an angry spot about the size of a silver dollar. It kept getting worse and burned like fire; so I telegraphed the nearest sanitarium for someone to meet me. I arrived at the place about midnight. A doctor was waiting up, and he made out a prescription for me. I was to remain in bed for several days, and was to have constant compresses of Epsom salts with an ice bag applied to that infection.
One of the nurses came in and began to prepare things. She unscrewed the cap of the ice bag, put the Epsom salts inside, and applied it to my foot. I gently suggested to her that it probably would be better to make a solution of Epsom salts, dip the compress into the solution, and put that on my foot, and then put the ice bag on top of it. That girl was doing the best she knew. She had been there only a little while, and she needed to be instructed. I dare say that by now she is one of the best nurses in the denomination.
We doubtless sometimes make a mistake by taking for granted that students or beginning workers know more than they do. We also take too much for granted in respect to the worker's knowledge and experience in the fundamental principles and denominational standards that ought to obtain in these institutions. When new workers come in, we ought to assume that it is part of our responsibility to teach them our principles, just the same as they are taught how to put a compress on an infected foot.
It is the responsibility of our leaders to see that proper instruction is given. How could that girl know until she had been taught? If I were to spend all my time on one point, I should like to emphasize this one point of instruction. A successfully conducted institution is an institution in which there are frequent meetings of the staff and of the family for the study of the great underlying principles that ought to operate in our work. The measure of success of any institution along these lines will be in proportion to the frequency of such meetings. How can workers gathered up from all over the land be expected to understand until instruction has been given?
That leads me now to emphasize another thing. What has been said you may characterize as precept, and this next is example. For instance, I do not believe that you can expect the workers in any institution to have a very high regard for the principles of Sabbath observance if the leaders of the institution go off fishing on the Sabbath. The leaders in an institution surely ought to exemplify in their own lives and by their own example all the principles they want to see carried out and practiced in the institution. Is that expecting too much? Why should we seek to impress the principles of dietetics upon a group of student nurses when those who are supposed to set an example to them are daily contradicting those principles in their own practice?
Above all things in this world, we ought not to be hypocrites. If we do not believe in the principles we are advocating in our institutions, I think we ought to separate ourselves from them. We ought to live consistently as leaders, so that those who look to us for an example in leadership may not be turned out of the way by the examples that are being set. Do you all agree that that is so? I never could see why the students in our schools should be expected to live on a vegetarian diet, when the members of the board are living in some other way.
Now what should be done with students in our training schools, or with workers employed in our institutions, who persistently refuse to live in harmony with our principles ? Does the institution exist for the benefit of individuals? Are they bound to be maintained there regardless of life, example, and influence? What do you think about it? I believe that where we find individuals who persistently fail to bring their lives and practice into harmony with the practice of the institution, they ought to be released. It may seem a bit severe to put it that way, but I believe you will agree, when you think it through, that it is the right stand to take.
I once overheard two patients in an institution discussing some things, when I was chairman of the board. The conversation of these two women was not intended for me, but I could not help overhearing it. I discovered that they knew more about what was going on in the institution than I did as chairman of the board They could repeat all the unjust things the manager had done to the workers, and the oppressions he had exercised over them. They knew all the failures of the doctors. I wondered how those patients learned all that. Do you have any idea? Somebody had been talking—talking out of turn.
The spirit of loyalty ought to be inculcated in all our workers. It is treason for anybody to talk of misunderstandings and difficulties to the guests in our institutions. It is treason to the Master in whose service they are supposed to be. We know that everyone has human weaknesses, but shall we go around among patients and spread news of those weaknesses ? I believe that the young people in our institutions ought to be taught loyalty. You have a word—ethics. You teach that it is unethical for nurses to talk to patients about a doctor or anyone else. The principle of loyalty is also involved. Such people ought to be helped to understand that it is a great betrayal of trust to talk to patients in this way. There are some who seem to be so constituted that it is hard for them to keep from scattering things like that. In the interests of our institutional work, we should relieve such people from employment if they will not change their ways, and find pleasure and delight in cooperating to make the institution all that it should be.
Let us not forget the great need for instruction in these matters, and then the next great principle of setting the right example to those under us, in order that our great denominational standards may be maintained.
