Byline: Romeo V. Pefianco
WE have all the finest, and perhaps the best of reasons in support of "not all" the applicants for the nursing board in June, 2006 but "only those involved in dishonest" acts of cheating should retake the fraudtainted tests.
The right rulings but ...
Our courts and administrative authorities were all convinced that only the "rotten eggs or mangoes" (not the US apples this time) among more than 17,800 passing examinees deserved to be sanctioned by taking a second time Tests 3 and 5.
The nurses' association argued that a foreign agency cannot impose its decision on us or substitute its findings for the best of our own.
The two major tests -- medical-surgical nursing and psychiatric nursing -- appear important to most of us to merit a mere leafing through.
All the honest arguments in the world would have a hard time to destroy just one doubt. We are honest in protecting the integrity of the nursing board. Is this beyond doubt?
But the US commission that gives or withholds VisaScreen for employing healthcare workers is also entitled to view with a kind of doubt our style of passing 17,000 plus nurses and failing more than one-half of the examinees June, 2006.
Who's in doubt?
Doubt is too subjective and some terms about doubt need to help us in winning the planned appeal in the US:
1. A nagging doubt -- One that continually troubles the conscience.
2. No room for doubt or without a shadow of doubt -- To have a feeling of absolute certainty.
3. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt -- To accept the most charitable explanation of someone's action.
Our stand, it is asserted, is supported in all respects by 2 and 3.
But we cannot force the US commission to let go of 1 and accept the nurses who passed the June, 2006 exams.
Let not others follow
Secretary Brion's worry is fully justified: "Other countries might also require those who passed the June, 2006 board to retake the tests in question. …