Dear Editor:
I write in response to the article by Meleis and Dracup, "The Case Against the DNP: History, Timing, Substance, and Marginalization," which provides sound rationale for abandoning the development of the DNP. Allow me, as a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA), to offer another reason for abandoning the DNP initiative, which impacts CRNAs directly.
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) openly supports the introduction of Anesthesia Assistants (AAs) into the present mix of providers. While nurses argue about the advantages or disadvantages of the DNP initiative, which may cause the pool of nurses that are qualified for advanced practice to shrink, the ASA will be more than happy to substitute AAs for
Master’s-prepared CRNAs, thus reducing costs to ASA members and allowing them to maintain control over the administration of anesthesia. Thus we, ourselves, will be presenting to ASA the perfect opportunity in which they can divide and conquer. They will be more than happy to exploit this opportunity to the fullest extent, and in so doing allow the quality of health care to decline and those patients requiring anesthesia service to suffer.
Kenneth R Castle, RN, CRNA
Anesthesia Professionals, Inc.
Central Falls, RI
PEN49@cox.net