As many of you know, the great nursing crisis of the new millennium is not limited to the US. Nurses are treated badly the world over, and as a result, many leave the profession or at least escape from hospitals. And as a career choice, many young people decide that there are greener pastures than nursing.

Here is a curious article from Australian News.com.au which can’t seem to decide if their “crisis” is improving, staying the same, or getting worse. Australia is both a nurser poacher and poachee–they recruit nurses from other countries, and their own nurses are heavily recruited from the US, UK, and Canada–all of which offer better pay and in some cases, working conditions.

So here we go. The article begins on a note of optimisim:

AUSTRALIA’S nursing shortage appears to be easing, with a new report showing there are more nurses per patient today than there were three years ago.

Then it hits you in the face with a wet diaper:

But the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report also shows the female-dominated profession is still facing the challenge of an aging workforce.

Nothing like putting a damper on the enthusiasm. And then we continue on this zigzag path–does she or doesn’t she? Are we losing nurses or gaining?

The AIHW report said there were 1106 full-time equivalent (FTE) nurses for every 100,000 people in 2003, up from 1031 two years earlier.

Okay, so there’s more nurses. But…..

The study contradicts an Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) report released earlier this week which found the ratio of nurses had dropped from 1080 per 100,000 people in 1986 to 908 in 2001.

Nothing like being indecisive, I always say. But never fear, now it tries to rationalize:

However, the AIHW report covers the two years immediately following the period studied by the ABS – indicating that the downward trend may be over.

But, still can’t make up their minds…

The ABS also found there was a 10 per cent increase in the overall number of nurses between 1986 and 2001, but the AIHW found just five per cent growth from 2001 to 2003.

Sounds like they need to learn how to count.

But perhaps the increase in nurses may not be a real increase at all, but just the fact that in the past two years, the number of hours that nurses are working has lengthened. And less nurses are working part time. So how there been any real increase? Or just nurses working longer and harder?

Stay tuned, I’m sure that they’ll make up their minds one of these fine days.

A day behind as usual, but this is a moment in the annals of medical history which should not go unnoticed. On July 25, 1978, the first baby conceived from an in vitro fertilization technique was born in England. The birth of Louise Joy Brown certainly changed the way we looked at conception and birth, and opened a Pandora’s box of ethics and arguments.

When does life begin? The age old question that even Moses didn’t seem to have an answer for. Does life begin at conception? At implantation in the womb? And most importantly in the debate over embryonic stem cells, does it begin in a petri dish?

I’m sure Louise had no idea about the fervor that her birth would cause. But any way you look at it, in vitro was a rather monumental accomplishment. It is just too bad that in their zeal to find a way to overcome infertility, the docs and scientists who pioneered this method never seemed to give second thought to thought to dealing with the ethics and potential problems that could arise. Like, what do we do with the half a million embryos chilling out in petri dishes–some who have been in deep freeze for over a decade?

Anyway, happy birthday Louise.