Year 11 SHP students have been considering how far Florence Nightingale deserves to be given the credit for improving C19th hospitals. Certainly she deserves a lot of credit for this, but was she the heroine that the Victorians painted her to be?
She remains one of the most famous Britons, but is her reputation built upon a myth built up by the newspapers at the time of the Crimean War. Or, do her achievements during the war and after the war (when she wrote training manuals for nurses and worked to improve hospital design and procedures) make her deserving of all the acclaim, then and now?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/nightingale_01.shtml
1 comment:
Even though Florence Nightingale improved hosipitals after her stay in Crimea; i don't believe she deserves to be known as a heroine because she did not in any way possible help the patients during the crimean war- due to the sewage sitting on top of the hosital,and the poor ventilation system. She was furthermore funded by the The Times to improve the ventilation system and the goverment which portrays no heroic actions whatsoever. After her return she did support numerous hosiptals and set up a training school yet i dont believe she provided a progessive effect throughout history to deserve a heroic tagline. In my opionons,Mary seacole is a right herioc figure whom helped and cared for the patients even though she deserved no help whatsoever unlike Nightingale who was funded by the goverment. Mary Seacole sought out a secure hospital near the front line during the war, and maintained a hospital by herself- this connotes her boldness and
bravery. I dont belive (with the points i have mentioned above) Nigtingale gales conveys her heroism to a high standard, unlike Mary Seacole, to be known as a heroine.
Post a Comment