Moderator EMEDPA Posted April 10, 2015 Moderator Share Posted April 10, 2015 'S....sigh....after 50 years..... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/watch/physicians-assistant-dubbed-most-promising-career-of-2015/vp-AAaBQaZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiggySRNA Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 At least they didn't include 's on the headline and didn't undermine the health care experience and educational requirements needed to become a PA. It's a start I guess, but not enough :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoRyou Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 At least they didn't include 's on the headline and didn't undermine the health care experience and educational requirements needed to become a PA. It's a start I guess, but not enough :) Slowly, but surely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 It will never change. We are stuck with the 's. Reporters can't read and don't do research on the correct way to say PA. If they read the AAPA and NCCPA sites they would pick up on the fact that there is no 's. All they need to do is read the d!^% material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialMedicine Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 GET OVER IT... YOU MAKE 6 FIGURES TO DO SOMETHING YOU LOVE and SOMEONE JUST SAID YOU HAVE THE BEST PROFESSION IN AMERICA. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanj59 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 You can email the station and let them know their error, I will be doing this... The station news number and info is here: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/station/kcbs/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanj59 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 What was also partially incorrect was the statement "and in some cases...prescribing medications". Some cases? You mean like everyday... I'm glad to see coverage of the profession, but these are such basic facts to get wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electric130 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Part of this was very correct, but on the other hand between the wrong title and what seemed like a downplay on what we are responsible for I wasn't too impressed. I think it is good for our profession to get more recognition, but again, it seemed to paint us in more of a advanced nursing light, especially with the taking the BP and such. Not to say I am above taking a BP, but that is typically not my role and not the role of most PAs. I am too busy trying to figure out a diagnosis, go through a chart and manage medications. Interesting too that they stated we occasionally prescribe medications, I probably prescribe at least forty meds a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoopeda Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 All they need to do is read the d!^% material. No way you can blame the American public for this. We're the ones who chose a confusing and asinine name that needs an 's just to make any sense in English. It's no wonder no one knows what a PA is. Native speaker subconscious adds the 's to correct our poor English (duh!) and we freak out about it? They're not the ones who screwed up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 AMA chose the title for us. We have no power to change it without AAPA endorsing a title/degree change. Maybe a state chapter could change it but AAPA and the state chapters are so closely aligned that it would be a difficult process. Yale and a few other programs are still called Physician Associate programs but the title and licensing still are Physician Assistant. PAEA could decide (I suppose) to direct all PA programs to change the degree title to something else. Then the universities/colleges would have red-tape to go through to have it approved. NCCPA would need to grant the certification as Physician Associate (or whatever "we" decide). A mass concerted effort would need to be undertaken by all players to force the degree title change. MMSc Medical Practitioner, MMSc Clinical Officer, DMSc Medical Practitioner, etc. DMSc Feldschar (sp)? The killers of the profession as far as insurance companies, CMS, credentialing committees and public perception are concerned are: title, dependence, supervision, delegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACdan Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 No way you can blame the American public for this. We're the ones who chose a confusing and asinine name that needs an 's just to make any sense in English. It's no wonder no one knows what a PA is. Native speaker subconscious adds the 's to correct our poor English (duh!) and we freak out about it? They're not the ones who screwed up... I see you make this point a lot, the whole "adjective before noun" spiel, but it is incorrect. Postpositive adjectives are grammatically correct in English. Postpositives are the norm in the major Romance languages and in our English roots. They are less common in modern usage; however, many postpositive adjectives remain today. Notary public, postmaster general, Alcoholics Anonymous, etc., etc. All of those above are grammatically correct examples of postpositive adjectives in titles that don't get butchered. So I choose to blame people's laziness and aversion to simple fact checking work as the root of the problem. If the news media were interested in more than attention getting headlines, maybe they'd stop propagating an easily correctable error on their part: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+it+Physician%27s+or+Physician+Assistant%3F Oh my god....phew, 3.7 seconds of fact checking... too much work. Maybe people should read more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoopeda Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 The problem, PAC Dan, is not that anyone is correct or incorrect. The problem that the examples you give are generally exceptions to contemporary colloquial usage. Sure, this structure is more common when you consider "the romance languages" as a whole, but were are not writing in the "romance languages." We are communicating in modern English where 999 out of 1000, the adj sits before the noun. Sure, we could start calling ourselves "PA Extraordinaire," but you can't blame people for not catching right on to an old fashioned name. That's all pretty much moot...The real problem, however, is not that while having a name whose structure technically (although rarely) correct uses a confusing grammatical structure. The real problem here is that, unlike every example given above (postmaster, AA, etc), the second word in our name "ASSISTANT" is ALSO A NOUN. There are no examples of 20th century postpositive adjectives that involve nominal adjectives (i.e. adjectives that can also be read as a noun). This is because they are, by nature, ambiguous in meaning and confusing. This is a HUGE problem all by itself. (Interestingly, Postmaster General IS one of these, but it's so old now that most people actually believe this referring to the "General" (noun) in charge of the postoffice.) This is the reason people want to put the apostrophe S on the P.This isn't a matter of being too much work to understand or not fact checking or not reading enough. The job of the medical provider is to be accessible and competent, and the name "Physician Assistant" is neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Goose Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 I see you make this point a lot, the whole "adjective before noun" spiel, but it is incorrect. Postpositive adjectives are grammatically correct in English. Postpositives are the norm in the major Romance languages and in our English roots. They are less common in modern usage; however, many postpositive adjectives remain today. Notary public, postmaster general, Alcoholics Anonymous, etc., etc. All of those above are grammatically correct examples of postpositive adjectives in titles that don't get butchered. So I choose to blame people's laziness and aversion to simple fact checking work as the root of the problem. If the news media were interested in more than attention getting headlines, maybe they'd stop propagating an easily correctable error on their part: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+it+Physician%27s+or+Physician+Assistant%3F Oh my god....phew, 3.7 seconds of fact checking... too much work. Maybe people should read more. You're right. But wouldn't keeping the postpositive adjective create "Physicians Assistant" in plurality, much like Surgeons General and Alcoholics Anonymous? As something of a descriptive grammarist, I agree with Zoo (and others) on the concept of having a name that is both easy to use and understand, as well as an accurate description of our work. Are you just pining for a more intelligent society, or do you feel that blaming the uninformed will help anything? Justifying the status quo to us isn't making any headway in terms of the public's perception of the profession--the real reason for the name change, as I understood it. Similarly, I have trouble faulting people who believe our title to be Physician's Assistant, as it accurately describes our role, especially in comparison to the grammatically confusing "Physician Assistant." In light of titles such as "ship's Captain," the apostrophe and "s" can signal a close relationship without being one of ownership or subservience, and isn't at all inappropriate. My take on the possible options for new names: "Physician Associate"-grammatically ambiguous, and still defines us in relationship to another profession (physicians). "PA"-people will think we are personal assistants (possibly to/for physicians), and many will still ask what the initials stand for, leaving us in the same place we are now. "Medical Practitioners"-describes who we are and what we do, without defining us in terms of another profession. Also capitalizes on the public knowledge of Nurse Practitioners. "Clinical Associate"-begs the question of who and/or what we are associated with. "Clinical Officer"-a runner up to "MP." Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACdan Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 This isn't a matter of being too much work to understand or not fact checking or not reading enough. The job of the medical provider is to be accessible and competent, and the name "Physician Assistant" is neither. It is the job of news organizations to check the veracity of their reports. Just because "Physican'S" assistant might sound more correct, does not make it so. How hard is it to verify the correct spelling from a credible source? I would argue that there is little excuse for news media not doing a simple, confirmatory web search. For the public-at-large, sure, they will flub it. However, if the media consistency publishes the name correctly, more people will pick up on that. The largest part of being accessible to the public is the recognition of PA duties/skill set/education. Whether or not Joe Blow pronounces the name right is a distance second to his association of PAs with good medicine. You're right. But wouldn't keeping the postpositive adjective create "Physicians Assistant" in plurality, much like Surgeons General and Alcoholics Anonymous? As something of a descriptive grammarist, I agree with Zoo (and others) on the concept of having a name that is both easy to use and understand, as well as an accurate description of our work. Are you just pining for a more intelligent society, or do you feel that blaming the uniformed will help anything? Justifying the status quo to us isn't making any headway in terms of the public's perception of the profession--the real reason for the name change, as I understood it. Similarly, I have trouble faulting people who believe our title to be Physician's Assistant, as it accurately describes our role, especially in comparison to the grammatically confusing "Physician Assistant." In light of titles such as "ship's Captain," the apostrophe and "s" can signal a close relationship without being one of ownership or subservience, and isn't at all inappropriate. My take on the possible options for new names: "Physician Associate"-grammatically ambiguous, and still defines us in relationship to another profession (physicians). "PA"-people will think we are personal assistants (possibly to/for physicians), and many will still ask what the initials stand for, leaving us in the same place we are now. "Medical Practitioners"-describes who we are and what we do, without defining us in terms of another profession. Also capitalizes on the public knowledge of Nurse Practitioners. "Clinical Associate"-begs the question of who and/or what we are associated with. "Clinical Officer"-a runner up to "MP." The problem with changing the name entirely is two-fold. We will be starting from scratch, all the recognition that PAs have gained so far will be undermined. It will be jarring to most. PAs will need to constantly reference the new title with the old one as a means of explanation. Further confusion will be the outcome for many patients. Secondly, while medical practioner might be a much better choice, the initials MP is widely associated with Military Police. Again more confusion. Physician Associate, while not great, is one that will preserve the initials, largely preserve the recognition achieved thus far, and be a much smoother transition overall, I believe. It's a rock and a hard place, but every year that goes by with PA as our initials, changing it makes less and less sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoopeda Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 It is the job of news organizations to check the veracity of their reports. Just because "Physican'S" assistant might sound more correct, does not make it so. How hard is it to verify the correct spelling from a credible source? I would argue that there is little excuse for news media not doing a simple, confirmatory web search. For the public-at-large, sure, they will flub it. However, if the media consistency publishes the name correctly, more people will pick up on that. The largest part of being accessible to the public is the recognition of PA duties/skill set/education. Whether or not Joe Blow pronounces the name right is a distance second to his association of PAs with good medicine. The problem with changing the name entirely is two-fold. We will be starting from scratch, all the recognition that PAs have gained so far will be undermined. It will be jarring to most. PAs will need to constantly reference the new title with the old one as a means of explanation. Further confusion will be the outcome for many patients. Secondly, while medical practioner might be a much better choice, the initials MP is widely associated with Military Police. Again more confusion. Physician Associate, while not great, is one that will preserve the initials, largely preserve the recognition achieved thus far, and be a much smoother transition overall, I believe. It's a rock and a hard place, but every year that goes by with PA as our initials, changing it makes less and less sense. Some very fair points, PAC Dan... 1. News Media ought to be held to a higher standard than the American public in terms of reporting accuracy. If we opt for Physicianist Assistantship, they ought to spell it the way it's branded. 2. It does seem the profession has worked hard recently to strongly brand "PA." Switching to MP would undermine that effort and probably get confused with the very similar "NP." 3. "Associate" does seem to offer some real advantages with minimal drawbacks. Yes, it's still goofy word order for most people, but even if folks use an apostrophe S, "Associate" seems a bit of a promotion from "Assistant." And while "PA" makes my skin crawl with the implied "Personal Assistant" meaning, all that "PA" branding would still stand by the minimally-disruptive switch from Assistant to Associate. As far as I can tell, there is no perfect solution here. What I'm realizing, as someone who is new to the profession, is that the name change issue is obviously contentious WITHIN the profession. It will never be settled at the national level as long as it remains such a divisive issue on the inside. Worst case, while we're busy in-fighting, the rest of the medical establishment steamrolls on ahead. Best case, we work to raise standards elsewhere around the profession and earn our place and reputation in a way that ultimately matters. That much I've learned through analogous issues among other health professionals. Good conversation; thanks for the banter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Goose Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Secondly, while medical practioner might be a much better choice, the initials MP is widely associated with Military Police. Again more confusion. Physician Associate, while not great, is one that will preserve the initials, largely preserve the recognition achieved thus far, and be a much smoother transition overall, I believe. Some might argue that there is very little brand recognition to preserve anyway, at least in terms of the general public's eye. Very unscientifically, I Googled "MP" and came up with no references to military police until the eighth page. By far, the most common result was for Members of Parliament, an issue that we might not need to contend with. Similarly, Googling "PA" yielded many results referring to the state of Pennsylvania, but none for Physician Assistant until the fourth page. 2. It does seem the profession has worked hard recently to strongly brand "PA." Switching to MP would undermine that effort and probably get confused with the very similar "NP." ... What I'm realizing, as someone who is new to the profession, is that the name change issue is obviously contentious WITHIN the profession. It will never be settled at the national level as long as it remains such a divisive issue on the inside. Worst case, while we're busy in-fighting, the rest of the medical establishment steamrolls on ahead. The similarity of MP to NP might be intentional. Same with the similary of MP to MD. And to me it sounds like you're not describing the worst-case scenario, but rather the acutal one. I guess the question is, who are we trying to sell our profession to, the medical establishment or the general public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_pavnp Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 You should really go for Medical Practitioner because, for reasons I find difficult to express, I think it would make Nurse Practitioners go absolutely berserk. And I say this as an individual who feels pressed into an NP license rather than a PA one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmj11 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 I have a book that I'm working on with a publisher. It has nothing to do with medicine or PA profession. However, I do refer to "Physician Assistant" a few times. The first round of editorial work with a very good editor from Penguin Books changed every Physician Assistant to Physician's Assistant. I argued with her (and she is a professional and anal about grammar) argued back. I finally convinced her. I just started the last round of the editorial process with a new professional editor. Immediately she marked the 5 uses of "Physician Assistant" and changed them to "Physician's Assistant" and now we are starting the argument all over again. The point is, this name confusion is our fault. Most people will assume that Physician Assistant is really "the physician's assistant," which really confuses people when we do things where we are not assisting a physician (like 99% of the time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.