Some further questions on the nature of caring.

I have followed the ongoing debate on ‘the lost art of caring’ with a great deal of interest and not a little confusion. The initial impetus for the discussion was the paper by Corbin (2008), which set the scene and, to some extent, defined the parameters for the three responses which followed in the subsequent issue of this journal (Flatley and Bridges, 2008; Griffiths, 2008; Maben, 2008). There is a fundamental but largely unspoken assumption running through Corbin’s paper and the three responses to it that, as nurses, we all have a shared understanding (if not a shared definition) of what is meant by the term ‘caring’. Whilst acknowledging that ‘caring is an elusive term, one that has different meanings in different context’ and is therefore hard to pin down, Corbin nevertheless sums it up simply as ‘a certain ‘‘something’’ that touches the humanness and vulnerability of persons who are ill’. She also distinguishes between ‘caring for’ and ‘caring about’, arguing that what nurses should be concerned with is the ‘whole package’ of ‘competence along with demonstrated interest’. However, despite the acknowledgement that caring is an elusive term that has a number of different meanings and that a definition is yet to be agreed on, she urges that we need to get ‘beyond defining what is meant by caring’ in order to discuss whether caring should continue to be a component of nursing. This, as any philosopher will tell you, is a dangerous and reckless move, and one which will inevitably lead to confusion and misunderstanding further down the line.