Singling out nurses is costly for the system
A strike can either open a necessary debate or degrade it. The Statute of Professional Qualifications is a complex document, and union demands regarding working conditions are legitimate. However, when nurses are singled out in some recent statements and slogans of the medical protest to gain significant negotiating leverage, all that is achieved is to weaken the system. This impoverishes the conversation, fractures teams, and erodes public trust.
The draft of the Statute of Professional Qualifications adjusts the classification based on qualifications. And it makes it clear that the structure and functioning of teams, as well as the competencies of different professionals, are not being redefined in any way. Deliberately confusing academic level with competencies is a self-serving fallacy.
This game of shadows activates an archaic corporatism that turns the conversation into a battleground. When it is suggested that a nurse with a doctorate is second-rate, the talent of a large number of professionals is devalued. And, most seriously, a pernicious message is reinforced: that their academic progress is a threat.
What should really concern us is the kind of environment we create so that all professionals can develop their skills with dignity and rigor. International evidence, and initiatives like Magnet4Europe (a European project adapting the Magnet model to hospitals, a standard for nursing practice and leadership environments), show that when organization and leadership are strong, talent stays and the quality of care improves.
It's true that we're not there yet. But this doesn't excuse us from anything. It obliges us to move forward, to take concrete steps that make professional well-being a structural condition. The Statute Marc is just the first step.
The text paves the way for a more structured recognition. The draft bill proposes a partial update to the Law on the Regulation of Healthcare Professions (LOPS) and strengthens the clinical dimension of the nursing profession. And, far from confusing roles, it clarifies them, consolidates the evidence-based approach of nurses, and adds value.
It also incorporates measures that directly impact work-life balance. A limit on weekly hours is proposed, the planning of on-call shifts and breaks is strengthened, and breaks during the workday and overlapping shift changes are recognized as effective working time. The latter ensures its inclusion in the calculation of effective time and avoids local disparities. Furthermore, the text includes emerging rights such as the right to disconnect, the strengthening of protocols against aggression, and a framework for advancing early retirement mechanisms linked to shift work or risk.
All of this is a step forward. But when the debate is caricatured, the fundamental issue is buried. And the fundamental issue is that we've been dragging along a legal framework since 2003 that, despite partial adjustments, hasn't been thoroughly reviewed for over two decades, while our professional reality advances at a breakneck pace.
Since then, the nursing profession has undergone remarkable evolution in training, research, problem-solving capacity, and clinical responsibility. To claim that this leap doesn't deserve a corresponding legal framework is to condemn the system to operate with outdated provisions.
In the debate sparked by the doctors' strike, nurses cannot be made scapegoats. We have supported, support, and will support any demand that improves the conditions for all professionals. We are very aware that we are part of a structure of trust that only works if everyone contributes.
We add value within a collective response that requires complementary knowledge to address increasingly complex healthcare needs. But this shared responsibility must be reciprocal. It cannot be that, when regulatory progress affects nurses, we are asked to resign. If we want a resilient healthcare system, respect cannot be a given.
Singling out nurses is costly. And there is no more room to keep paying that price.
