The life and trial of Dagmar Nelson--part 2.
During the more desperate years of the Great Depression a group of physicians brought an injunction proceeding against Dagmar Nelson and her employing hospital for illegally practicing medicine without a license. She administered general anesthesia and her employer knew it and supported her. It was a bizarre trial in that the arguments presented by both sides seem incongruous to our way of thinking today. The evidence presented at the trial echoed the predominant view at the time--the undisputed dominance of the male physician over the female nurse, who was portrayed, even by the defense, as only an extension of the surgeon who "has the power and therefore the responsibility" to control the surgery. Had she lost, anesthesia as a specialty of nursing would not exist. The method by which she won, however, has haunted us to this day. Part 1 of this 2-part column was published in the June 2006 AANA Journal.
Van Nest
Ronald L
RL
Northwestern California University, Sacrmento, USA.
D000776:Anesthesiology / Q000266:history / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D002140:California; D049673:History, 20th Century; D006801:Humans; D008008:Licensure, Nursing / Q000266:history / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D008318:Malpractice / Q000266:history* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D009719:Nurse Anesthetists / Q000266:history* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D024802:Nurse's Role / Q000266:history*; D009741:Nursing Staff, Hospital / Q000266:history* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D032024:Personnel Delegation; D010819:Physician's Role / Q000266:history; D019555:Physician-Nurse Relations; D017009:Professional Autonomy