Moderator LT_Oneal_PAC Posted March 29, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 29, 2012 One of the reasons PA was created was because Eugene Stead thought a problem with medical education was that there was no lateral mobility in education. A series of parallel ladders. One could climb, only to have to go back down and climb another to advance after hitting the ceiling (ie nurse becoming a physician) without accounting for prior education. Doesn't this idea seem to invite a bridge for PAs to become MDs? And if advocacy is an issue, which is the only logical argument against a bridge that I can see, couldn't it be said that PAs becoming physicians would led to better advocacy from those with the greatest control over us? As for the AAPA being advocates, shouldn't that mean they follow the will of their constituents? If not, then aren't they only advocating for themselves (the leadership) and not for PAs as a whole? If the majority wants a name change, then it should be endorsed because that is what the people want. To do otherwise is ignoring the will of of the group and not advocacy. Just thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.