Singapore girls must be conscripted into NS as nurses
-
That's why I'm asking about this National Service thing. Cos it seems that for Singapore's case, National Service naturally refers to Service to the Defence side of SG. hmm.. from your reply it seems that I have said something wrong. To be honest, I don't know what I have said wrong. I'm just questioning on why it seems National Service here means to serve the Defence portion of it. If that's the case, I feel that the term "National Service" is not very appropriate since there really aren't that many choices to serve the Nation, meaningfully of course..Originally posted by asdfzhao:so does that mean singaporean guys can dun go into saf for national service? no right? do have the right to choose how we will help this country during the 2 years? no right? some guys like to fight but wat about those who don't? they have a choice? no right? so does that mean medics come out can become a doctor or nurse? no right.
I totally agree with that. Learning first aid is nothing bad at all. Not sure why people would disagree on that, unless they find that learning first aid is a waste of time.Originally posted by asdfzhao:so i dont see the problem with females learning first aid. they dun need the caring heart or whatever, they just need the knowledge to give an injurt person some medical help. after all, appling 1st aid b4 the ambulance arrives might just save the person... that said, guys gotta learn first aid too... -
For goodness sake, guys are already being singled out because reservist, you want the economy to be hit hard again?Originally posted by NotFromVenus:I believe girls can Serve NS in a different CMPB way, for example, care for the Special , aged homes , national service means , Compulsory time spent for the Good of the Nation.
Be sure to include Reservist for them and a minimum physical fitness criteria as we see more Fat and Carrot legged girls around.
Either way, NS for females isn't a bad idea. Just need to drop the reservist crap or implement something better than reservist. -
Maybe set tests once a year to see if they have forgotten what they learned?Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:For goodness sake, guys are already being singled out because reservist, you want the economy to be hit hard again?
Either way, NS for females isn't a bad idea. Just need to drop the reservist crap or implement something better than reservist. -
why not?Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:For goodness sake, guys are already being singled out because reservist, you want the economy to be hit hard again?
Either way, NS for females isn't a bad idea. Just need to drop the reservist crap or implement something better than reservist.
gahmen's favourite mah.
must take the bitter pill.
why are singaporean employees being singled out?
because there is no protection for them. -
Do you think nurses are so easily trained ? It takes 3 years to get one registered nurse trained. And it takes at least a while for a nurse to be experienced. It takes one big fuck up to get deregistered permanently . Why do you think to be a nurse requires registration?Originally posted by Ferguson:for at least 1 year.
benefits are plenty
And not everybody can stand the sight of blood or the smell of vomitus and diarrhea. If I have a big cut on the leg, I rather have a person looking after me who can look at my bleeding leg without me using the callbell to call for help if she faints.
Do you think that nursing is just to heal and to care like Florence Nightingale's time - sit and talk to patients all the time, obey doctors and empty bedpans? You think that nurses don't need an education and training in pathophysiology/anatomy, pharmacological science as well as assessing symptoms?
So before you shoot your mouth off....go consider the factors of conscripting girls as nurses for 1 year. I was a registered nurse who trained new student nurses before and they got alot to learn for that whole 3 years before qualifying. Even the enrolled nurses take quite a few years to know almost as much as a registered nurse through experience - not 1 freaking bloody year.
Unless you want a whole bunch of patient care assistants who only know the basics and can't function as real nurses in hospital settings. -
it would actually make more sense to assign them clerical or logistical vocations
-
so if a guy cant stand the sight of those(especially blood), he is not required to go on the battlefield cos he will freak out and others will have to pull him to safety? o...and what about medics? are'nt they nurses on the battlefield that were trained in 2 years?Originally posted by fymk:And not everybody can stand the sight of blood or the smell of vomitus and diarrhea. If I have a big cut on the leg, I rather have a person looking after me who can look at my bleeding leg without me using the callbell to call for help if she faints.
Do you think that nursing is just to heal and to care like Florence Nightingale's time - sit and talk to patients all the time, obey doctors and empty bedpans? You think that nurses don't need an education and training in pathophysiology/anatomy, pharmacological science as well as assessing symptoms? -
so much for gender equality?
-
Nah, make it 2. Not fair that girls enter the workforce before us.
Good idea to solve the shortage of ER nurses. Get SMM to conduct special course for these girls and recruit them directly.
While they are at it, the voting age can be lowered from 21 to 19 as well. -
guys also no choice have to do NSOriginally posted by fymk:Do you think nurses are so easily trained ? It takes 3 years to get one registered nurse trained. And it takes at least a while for a nurse to be experienced. It takes one big fuck up to get deregistered permanently . Why do you think to be a nurse requires registration?
And not everybody can stand the sight of blood or the smell of vomitus and diarrhea. If I have a big cut on the leg, I rather have a person looking after me who can look at my bleeding leg without me using the callbell to call for help if she faints.
Do you think that nursing is just to heal and to care like Florence Nightingale's time - sit and talk to patients all the time, obey doctors and empty bedpans? You think that nurses don't need an education and training in pathophysiology/anatomy, pharmacological science as well as assessing symptoms?
So before you shoot your mouth off....go consider the factors of conscripting girls as nurses for 1 year. I was a registered nurse who trained new student nurses before and they got alot to learn for that whole 3 years before qualifying. Even the enrolled nurses take quite a few years to know almost as much as a registered nurse through experience - not 1 freaking bloody year.
Unless you want a whole bunch of patient care assistants who only know the basics and can't function as real nurses in hospital settings.
make it 3 yrs and reservist every year 2 times for 1 mth each till they are 70 years old to enough knowledge up to date
-
why? the guy suffer,wasted in NS already...
and now u wan the women to suffer the same ?
U sadist! -
Speaking about Nurses... does anyone here seriously think it takes just 2 years to train a professional soldier?
There will always obviously be a difference in quality and experience between your NSF and regular... just because a lady only has two years to serve does not mean she cannot become a nurse in any sense of the word... and of course, being a nurse is not to only potential NS role for women, just as not every guy HAS to fight as a vocation in NS. But let's just consider nursing as one of the NS vocations:
But plenty of useful stuff can still be learnt and done in 2 years, it's not as if there's any reason to believe to NSF nurse will be totally incompetent... and given a time of crisis where there are many injured, anybody would prefer a person with any level of knowledge in nursing then people with no knowledge at all.
All in all it's quite feasible, if you have modest goals and know where to draw the line. The idea is not to make each and every NSF nurse into a full-fledged professional like those who do it as a profession, but rather a force of personnel that is trained in the basics, competent within their jobscope, and takes the pressure off the professionals in times of crisis by managing lesser cases. After all we are trying to give citizens a secondary National Defence capability, not make their into their whole life.
The other (and I suppose more important) question is if our soceity is willing to foot the social and economic costs of implementing such a thing. There will be costs, no doubt about it and people are split on it. Some even question a need for NS altogether. Personally I feel that if there's no NS, there will be no Singapore as we know it today (and it's not just the bad things, but the good ones as well)... female NS isn't a bad idea... but it needs to be carefully considered. -
Then every servicemen wants to be medic and stab their buddy every week le.
Worst case, everybody will report sick everyday. -
i totally agree with you.. nursing is not an easy task or job.. u really need to train very hard before your got that licence to practice.. not like NS only 2 yrs in camp learn the stuff adn go back to resve.. Nurses cant do it tis way, if nt many people will die if we nurses cant be the first line people to heal them..Originally posted by fymk:Do you think nurses are so easily trained ? It takes 3 years to get one registered nurse trained. And it takes at least a while for a nurse to be experienced. It takes one big fuck up to get deregistered permanently . Why do you think to be a nurse requires registration?
And not everybody can stand the sight of blood or the smell of vomitus and diarrhea. If I have a big cut on the leg, I rather have a person looking after me who can look at my bleeding leg without me using the callbell to call for help if she faints.
Do you think that nursing is just to heal and to care like Florence Nightingale's time - sit and talk to patients all the time, obey doctors and empty bedpans? You think that nurses don't need an education and training in pathophysiology/anatomy, pharmacological science as well as assessing symptoms?
So before you shoot your mouth off....go consider the factors of conscripting girls as nurses for 1 year. I was a registered nurse who trained new student nurses before and they got alot to learn for that whole 3 years before qualifying. Even the enrolled nurses take quite a few years to know almost as much as a registered nurse through experience - not 1 freaking bloody year.
Unless you want a whole bunch of patient care assistants who only know the basics and can't function as real nurses in hospital settings. -
SAF nursing officers are all trained registered nurses who had to undergo the 3 year diploma or degree now to be one. Combat medic specialists are mostly registered nurses or health professionals. They are not your combat medics.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Speaking about Nurses... does anyone here seriously think it takes just 2 years to train a professional soldier?
There will always obviously be a difference in quality and experience between your NSF and regular... just because a lady only has two years to serve does not mean she cannot become a nurse in any sense of the word... and of course, being a nurse is not to only potential NS role for women, just as not every guy HAS to fight as a vocation in NS. But let's just consider nursing as one of the NS vocations:
But plenty of useful stuff can still be learnt and done in 2 years, it's not as if there's any reason to believe to NSF nurse will be totally incompetent... and given a time of crisis where there are many injured, anybody would prefer a person with any level of knowledge in nursing then people with no knowledge at all.
All in all it's quite feasible, if you have modest goals and know where to draw the line. The idea is not to make each and every NSF nurse into a full-fledged professional like those who do it as a profession, but rather a force of personnel that is trained in the basics, competent within their jobscope, and takes the pressure off the professionals in times of crisis by managing lesser cases. After all we are trying to give citizens a secondary National Defence capability, not make their into their whole life.
The other (and I suppose more important) question is if our soceity is willing to foot the social and economic costs of implementing such a thing. There will be costs, no doubt about it and people are split on it. Some even question a need for NS altogether. Personally I feel that if there's no NS, there will be no Singapore as we know it today (and it's not just the bad things, but the good ones as well)... female NS isn't a bad idea... but it needs to be carefully considered.
Hrm I wonder why SAF nursing officers and registered nurses who are Combat Medic Specialist actually outrank common combat medics from non-nursing background. Oh wait ....it's because of qualified and certified training ! Even some combat medics have the 3 year nursing education and registration as registered nurses like those underwater naval combat medics!
So a better way to put it is to train girls from non nursing backgrounds as combat medics and first aid officers. That will be adequate for what you are suggesting . Like St John's first aid officers. Just train them as first aid officers or assistants to doctors/nurses but don't call them nurses.
Combat medics and first aid officers don't need to know much - they just need to know how to give frontline on the spot first aid treatment and CPR , give morphine when someone gets injured badly etc . The SAF medicos and nurses can run the show from behind.
If any person who treats a wound and can call themselves a nurse - then what is the bloody use of a registration system and a 3 year nursing education for ? We might as well take any one who just knows abit about wound management off the street and call them a nurse. It's like calling anyone wearing a stethoscope around their neck , a doctor. -
When a soldier is in a fight for life or death , I don't think he will faint especially if it's his life. You can't have the combat medics, doctors or nurses who fear blood and gore because they are your primary center of treatment aka your repair center. Would you like to be the guy who is badly injured when the someone who could treat you just fainted from looking at your wounds?Originally posted by asdfzhao:so if a guy cant stand the sight of those(especially blood), he is not required to go on the battlefield cos he will freak out and others will have to pull him to safety? o...and what about medics? are'nt they nurses on the battlefield that were trained in 2 years?
Combat medics are not nurses - they are first aid officers . The most they will know is abit more than first aid i.e. how to insert an IV canula , perform CPR , stop a wound bleeding, inject morphine if the soldier is in pain (i.e. leg shot /disembowelment) , how to set a broken leg on the ground but they won't know WHY certain things are done that way . It's advanced first aid at most , not nursing.
That is why you have SAF nursing officers and Combat Medic Specialists from the SAF medical corp . They are the trained registered nurses NOT normal combat medics who have no health or nursing background. A registered nurse has to know HOW and has to know WHY . -
Combat medics are most expendable in the line of fire - they know only advanced first aid and with a bit of experience and luck - they can give advanced treatment properly.
Usually the ones with the least qualifications and skills required are sent out frontline.
Combat Medic Specialists (frontline mostly health professionals with actual qualifications) - they supervise the combat medics and they have to risk the line of fire to supervise but I doubt that will happen.
Army nursing officers are less expendable - they know advanced first aid and they know how to anticipate things as they are happening especially when the combat medics are bringing in the wounded they treated. i.e. which organ the bullet hits , triaging, infection control etc . They also usually assist the army surgeons in operating theatres.
Army medical officers are the least expendable - they know the most.
So that is why combat medics go into the secondline together with the frontline troops, not SAF nursing officers or Medical Officers - they stay at the back with those mobile medical treatment units. -
let's not turn this into an argument about semantics or terms again like that other pointless thread.
TS's point was, rope girls into NS, but fill them in non-combat positions. -
There are many ways of going about this, but I think that almost anybody agrees that any useful skill is many times better then no skill at all in a time of crisis.Originally posted by fymk:If any person who treats a wound and can call themselves a nurse - then what is the bloody use of a registration system and a 3 year nursing education for ? We might as well take any one who just knows abit about wound management off the street and call them a nurse. It's like calling anyone wearing a stethoscope around their neck , a doctor.
As for if there is really a need to call them "nurses", that's just a debate over labels. And prehaps even a waste of breath. It's like arguing over if we should use the term "pilots" for UAV operators or fastcraft drivers (of which the label has been applied)... but the implementation and need for the jobscope is still there at the end of the day.
Though I think fmyk's concept of nurse is a tad narrow, not to mention splitting hairs. While the job scope and professionalism of the typical nurse has improved considerably, I do not think that warrants the exclusion of lesser skilled or trained individuals from the label. Would you go to a third world hospital and consider their nurses undeserving of the label? I don't think.
Also the Singapore army generates specialists in an extremely short period of time, but I have yet to see serious objections over considering them NCOs and instead putting on some "pseudo-commander" despite their lack of experience.
At the end of the day it's just much talk about labels, but that does not change the important of their job. Not to mention going off track liao.
The question remains... is it, or is it not a good idea to implement NS is a form specialized for females? Are there NS vocations that can be created specially for the ladies?
I believe so... the question is not really if we can or not, but if we dare or should. -
Labels are important legislatively because of the privilege of responsibilities assigned to the holder of the label expected beyond a common public level of knowledge.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:There are many ways of going about this, but I think that almost anybody agrees that any useful skill is many times better then no skill at all in a time of crisis.
As for if there is really a need to call them "nurses", that's just a debate over labels. And prehaps even a waste of breath. It's like arguing over if we should use the term "pilots" for UAV operators or fastcraft drivers (of which the label has been applied)... but the implementation and need for the jobscope is still there at the end of the day.
Though I think fmyk's concept of nurse is a tad narrow, not to mention splitting hairs. While the job scope and professionalism of the typical nurse has improved considerably, I do not think that warrants the exclusion of lesser skilled or trained individuals from the label. Would you go to a third world hospital and consider their nurses undeserving of the label? I don't think.
Also the Singapore army generates specialists in an extremely short period of time, but I have yet to see serious objections over considering them NCOs and instead putting on some "pseudo-commander" despite their lack of experience.
At the end of the day it's just much talk about labels, but that does not change the important of their job. Not to mention going off track liao.
The question remains... is it, or is it not a good idea to implement NS is a form specialized for females? Are there NS vocations that can be created specially for the ladies?
I believe so... the question is not really if we can or not, but if we dare or should.
There are laws that anyone who poses as a registered doctor or registered nurse without the qualifications necessary to be one will face a penalty . The legislation for nurses is the nurses and midwives act which effectively fines anyone posing as one and gives them a criminal record.
I am agree with you about the fact that you need advanced first aid officers in wars hence combat medics (which I reiterated earlier) but I don't think the title of nurse should be used in vain. -
Fair enough, since in Singapore the term "nurse" has come to mean a lot more.Originally posted by fymk:Labels are important legislatively because of the privilege of responsibilities assigned to the holder of the label expected beyond a common public level of knowledge.
There are laws that anyone who poses as a registered doctor or registered nurse without the qualifications necessary to be one will face a penalty . The legislation for nurses is the nurses and midwives act which effectively fines anyone posing as one and gives them a criminal record.
I am agree with you about the fact that you need advanced first aid officers in wars hence combat medics (which I reiterated earlier) but I don't think the title of nurse should be used in vain.
I think we are quite interested to hear more opinions from any other ladies on the idea of female NS. Any takers? -
i'm against it, in fact i'm aganist ns for our guys too! why should we do ns when foreigners and pr don't need to and yet enjoy the same privileges as us?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Fair enough, since in Singapore the term "nurse" has come to mean a lot more.
I think we are quite interested to hear more opinions from any other ladies on the idea of female NS. Any takers?
i think the govt should scrap ns altogether for we'll become the minority in our own country eventually. -
girls are gonna hate me for saying this, but why dun girls do the army like guys, then they will learn to appreciate things better and not act like a spoilt princess.
-
Who said it was fair as it is now (though it ought to be)... but I think GOVERNMENT aside, NS is really quite vital to the stability and survival of normal Singaporeans like us.Originally posted by pearlie27:i'm against it, in fact i'm aganist ns for our guys too! why should we do ns when foreigners and pr don't need to and yet enjoy the same privileges as us?
i think the govt should scrap ns altogether for we'll become the minority in our own country eventually.
Without a credible military ability, it would simply be quite difficult for us to survive as a nation in our current geopolitical situtation. Other countries would simply not think twice about playing punk with us and messing around with water treaties more then they are doing now.
That said, a certain northern country has made a lot of talk about cutting water supplies, but I think on a certain level they know that turning off the tap is not such a easy thing to do... it would be a lot easier if we didn't carry a credible military 'stick'.
And yeah, NS also serves as a good wake up call to many of us on the realities of life. I learnt a lot of things in there that turned out to be quite useful lessons in life... not that I am denying the disadvantages we have to incur for serving NS... but I think as a nation, and I'm saying this without any political affiliation... it's pretty worth it.
What needs to be done is not to scrap NS, but find ways to be more fair to our people who have done their deed for their nation instead of just telling them to "suck thumb" because it's their duty. -
this is not israel between
