Is PA political activism alienating PAs?

[rev ronin]

So, I'm pondering why people aren't members of either AAPA or their state organization, and one thing that occurs to me is that there are quite likely reasons unrelated to money that drive some PAs away from their organizations.  I've made no secret of the fact that the AAPA's decision to disinvite Ben Carson prompted me to not renew my membership and remain outside the AAPA for several years. Am I the only one?  Or are there other folks out there who have stayed away or become non-members based on the political direction of their organizations?  If you feel comfortable stating your current or past objections, feel free to do so, but this is a POLL, and we can start other threads to argue whether the AAPA should or should not take a stand on e.g. immigration policy or whatever.

[sas5814]

Rev I'd suggest the reverse question because it recently came up in a conversation with some folks in leadership. have you ever decided not to join because the org ISN'T doing anything you consider politically valuabe.

I was out of my state society for many years because I didn't think they were doing anything except cowering in the shadows of the physicians. People join because they see a personal tangible benefit.

[rev ronin]

1 hour ago, sas5814 said:

Rev I'd suggest the reverse question because it recently came up in a conversation with some folks in leadership. have you ever decided not to join because the org ISN'T doing anything you consider politically valuabe.

I was out of my state society for many years because I didn't think they were doing anything except cowering in the shadows of the physicians. People join because they see a personal tangible benefit.

Fair point, and I'd been trying to convey inaction by the example of name change, but you see why I'm an ex-IT-guy-turned-PA, rather than a scientific pollster.

[Guest Paula]

I quit AAPA in 2011 for a couple of years due to their inaction on title change and ignoring the PAs, letting us lag behind other professionals.  I rejoined in about 2013 because AAPA became a better organization, I joined PAFT as one of the founding members, and from then on PA activism for a better profession has been my focus.  I was not happy either with the Ben Carson debacle and it was disappointing to me AAPA would deny the PA and Dr. Carson their well deserved awards.  

[surgblumm]

My daughter is on the Board of Directors for PHR, an organization that is concerned with people, immigrants, border problems, Somalians and atrocities being committed in the Middle East and elsewhere. They send medical teams to gather forensic information that is then used for war criminal trials in the Hague. Yes, PAs should be concerned and supportive of the care of immigrants trying to have the American dream.

[CookiePA]

That is pretty cool! Thank you to your daughter and other members for their time and efforts!

Please do share more info, or start a topic thread. I’d love to know more about it

[Boatswain2PA]

9 hours ago, surgblumm said:

Yes, PAs should be concerned and supportive of the care of immigrants trying to have the American dream.

Of course we should.

And we should expect people to use the FRONT DOOR when entering our house.

 

 

[rev ronin]

1 hour ago, Boatswain2PA said:

Of course we should.

And we should expect people to use the FRONT DOOR when entering our house.

This is a good example of where good people can differ about the solution to a problem.  We could sit here and call each other names over such differences of opinion, but that's unhelpful.  Acknowledging that people of different political beliefs who prefer different solutions can all be well-meaning is part of what makes a civil society work.

So, when AAPA, or a state organization, takes a particular political stance, it necessarily alienates some people.  I suggest that, for example, taking stands on particular solutions to the immigration crisis, will drive away PAs who value their opinion on that matter sufficiently more than their overall impression of AAPA or their state org's value to them.

While the response to the poll does not appear to indicate an overwhelming problem, the more interesting data seem to be that the AAPA is a bigger target for dissatisfaction over its political stances than the (average/aggregate) state PA organization.  Not terribly surprising, I think, because awareness of state PA org activities is far lower, I suspect.

Are we willing enough to make a 'big tent' AAPA that we're going to work to roll back divisive policy statements? It's a question thorny enough to have prompted me to write the poll.

[CAdamsPAC]

14 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

Of course we should.

And we should expect people to use the FRONT DOOR when entering our house.

 

 

I'm with you Boats, we have an obligation to help . I've felt for a very long time that PA organizations spend far too much time on being "liked" instead of fighting for the advancement of the professions and rank and file PAs.

[ohiovolffemtp]

I agree.  To that end, we should avoid anything which will fracture the PA community, specifically politically oriented statements, so we can focus our political capital on the issues CAdams describes.  We don't have much political capital, especially when compared to NP's and docs, so we need to spend it wisely.

[deltawave]

So long as they stay in their lane (hot comment as of late) with regards to PA policy and promoting our profession I will remain an active member. 

I am about as pro-title change as you can be. I know that has been attempted unsuccessfully in the past under different leadership. I remain very enthusiastic for title change, OTP, and eliminating the PANRE; each of which seem to be at the forefront of the agenda for PA professional associations.  If these fail, then I see no point in renewing membership, personally. I am in my PA career infancy, so I’m sure my career will see a lot of changes. I will not spend that career putting my money into any organization that is stagnant or counter productive to the evolution of our practice. 

Furthermore, I do not expect people, which includes PAs to agree on every sociopolitical, socioeconomic, etc topic. Diversity in thought is a good thing, and healthy debate is a benefit to society. However, the role of any organization that represents our profession to better PA practice, career, or legislation should be strictly contained to that metric. They should refrain from public commentary or posturing on politically charged topics and events. Period. 
 

I do not care to hear the AAPA’s opinion on politics outside of the scope of a PA and their patients and PA career development. 

[CAdamsPAC]

2 minutes ago, deltawave said:

So long as they stay in their lane (hot comment as of late) with regards to PA policy and promoting our profession I will remain an active member. 

I am about as pro-title change as you can be. I know that has been attempted unsuccessfully in the past under different leadership. I remain very enthusiastic for title change, OTP, and eliminating the PANRE; each of which seem to be at the forefront of the agenda for PA professional associations.  If these fail, then I see no point in renewing membership, personally. I am in my PA career infancy, so I’m sure my career will see a lot of changes. I will not spend that career putting my money into any organization that is stagnant or counter productive to the evolution of our practice. 

Furthermore, I do not expect people, which includes PAs to agree on every sociopolitical, socioeconomic, etc topic. Diversity in thought is a good thing, and healthy debate is a benefit to society. However, the role of any organization that represents our profession to better PA practice, career, or legislation should be strictly contained to that metric. They should refrain from public commentary or posturing on politically charged topics and events. Period. 
 

I do not care to hear the AAPA’s opinion on politics outside of the scope of a PA and their patients and PA career development. 

Agree completely! The AAPA and state organizations  titles use what should be their focus PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS to identify themselves!

[CookiePA]

What is everyone’s thoughts on getting AMA involved? I for some reason dont see us going anywhere until AMA gives us some room to work on ourselves. Have you guys read any reddit posts lately and/or twitter? It is filled with grumps against NPs/PAs
we are not going to get anywhere in this tug of war between NPs and MDs. We need to cut our self from AMA and/or have either AMA back us up against NPs or let us be our own governing body. The reason I say against NPs is because I dont see nursing lobbying stopping anytime soon and to some extent they made it this far so why should they??

I do worry about PAs getting pushed out once pay parity discussions happen. Hospital admins will not care and will actively look to fill positions with NPs, dare I say regardless of competency level....

 

[CAAdmission]

It's been said here before, but there are two routes for AMA.

1. They can attack "midlevels" eventually run PAs out of business, and see the market totally taken over by NPs that don't give a damn about the AMA.

2. They can support PAs - invented by a physician, trained in the medical model, and help lots of their members provide better care to patients. 

AMA is far too obtuse to go with number 2. They are a cancer. 

 

[deltawave]

10 hours ago, CookiePA said:

What is everyone’s thoughts on getting AMA involved? I for some reason dont see us going anywhere until AMA gives us some room to work on ourselves. Have you guys read any reddit posts lately and/or twitter? It is filled with grumps against NPs/PAs
we are not going to get anywhere in this tug of war between NPs and MDs. We need to cut our self from AMA and/or have either AMA back us up against NPs or let us be our own governing body. The reason I say against NPs is because I dont see nursing lobbying stopping anytime soon and to some extent they made it this far so why should they??

I do worry about PAs getting pushed out once pay parity discussions happen. Hospital admins will not care and will actively look to fill positions with NPs, dare I say regardless of competency level....

 

Why does every post here devolve into PA vs. NP/MD? It has literally nothing to do with political activism by professional groups. 
 

That’s not what this thread is about, but I’ll raise you a rant. 

I’ll go a step further and say that posters on this forum AND those of other providers are small samples of the medical profession population. That goes for reddit/etc. also; sample bias must be accounted for. There is a lot of griping, yet those griping are generally the same folks over and over and if you think of how many folks are out there not griping on the net... Well, there you have it. Day to day I encounter an interdisciplinary team of healthcare providers, and I have never felt like I was undervalued, discredited, or subpar. Are there assholes out there, sure. However, offline in real-world scenarios I don’t have the palpable sense that MDs and NPs are at war with PAs... I saw a post once that NPs are living rent free in the minds of many here; I have to concur. 

[sas5814]

Delta I hear you and you are not alone in your observation. People who have a complaint will spend 100 x more energy complaining than someone who is happy will talk about how happy they are.

I think the overt "no expansion for any non-physician" is out there at the political level and is ubiquetous. The ground level at work stuff is more subtle and insidious. 

I think I work for a pretty good organization in most ways. Recently I had some exposure to physicians at the upper levels of management and was somewhat stunned to  discover a "sit down and shut up we know everything" attitude that was thinly disquised behind a polite veneer. "thanks for sharing your thoughts" and "we are aware of that" with zero feedback or any suggestion feedback or follow up would ever come. When I suggested the organization could really benefit by having a PA at the senior admin level nobody said "tell me how we could benefit". The answer was "no we wouldn't".

[CookiePA]

“Why does every post here devolve into PA vs. NP/MD? It has literally nothing to do with political activism by professional groups. “

I dont find that to be true. Political activism within professionalism groups is in part to advocate for the profession in itself as well. And yeah part of the issue is people not supporting local organizations, which is sometimes the best way to get involved and work on things first hand. 
I hear you about sample bias

 

CJAdmission- Same, doubt AMA will go with #2.

[rev ronin]

12 hours ago, mcclane said:

One must not equate public health issues such as gun control with political activism.  That individuals would choose the side of greater human suffering rather than support the public health initiatives of many medical organizations speaks to the effectiveness of defaming public health with the unsupported accusation of activism.  A "poll" performed upon PA forum, hah, you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Prime example of how different approaches are vilified by folks who can't see that there are other perspectives besides theirs.

Have you ever met a pro-gun PA?  With the number of veterans we have, I can guarantee you there are more than a few.  Do you think that they intentionally choose "the side of greater human suffering"? If so, then the problem isn't their politics, it's that they're fundamentally evil human beings.

Or maybe, just maybe, they think that the pro-gun-control side is the side of greater human suffering.  It might be an interesting issue to debate, rather than throw around pejorative statements as if the matter is settled.

But let's look the decision from the perspective that prompted me to start the thread: What's the proportion of pro-gun PAs? 10%? 25%?  How many PAs are going to abandon AAPA or your state chapter if they pass a one-sided call for gun control?  Is that one issue, or a host of similar issues, worth losing that proportion of the AAPA or state organization's political clout, *just* to make a meaningless statement on a contentious political topic?  I would say that no, any political 'minority' can, and probably should, vote with its feet and money to NOT support an organization that strays from its own charter to address contentious political issues.

[GetMeOuttaThisMess]

For myself, I don’t even remember the last time I was an AAPA member (decades?). I have reluctantly remained a member of TAPA throughout my career hoping that at some point they’d quit sitting on their hands, but till the end of my career I will have wondered did I get my money’s worth out of them? Bottom line, I stayed employed, obtained licensure, was able to obtain prescriptive privileges (probably the biggest change that impacted my time as a PA) so I guess the answer would be yes. It’ll be interesting to see where the profession goes now that I no longer have a vested interest.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

1 hour ago, rev ronin said:

How many PAs are going to abandon AAPA or your state chapter if they pass a one-sided call for gun control?  Is that one issue, or a host of similar issues, worth losing that proportion of the AAPA or state organization's political clout, *just* to make a meaningless statement on a contentious political topic?  I would say that no, any political 'minority' can, and probably should, vote with its feet and money to NOT support an organization that strays from its own charter to address contentious political issues.

Imagine the dismay if the AAPA would pull a conservative move and call for an end to abortion?  I'm sure McClane would disagree, but what better "public health" issue than the ending of the life of hundreds of thousands of minorities?

While I am anti-abortion, I wouldn't want the AAPA to wade into that.  Just like I don't want them involved in the gun control argument.  

But that's one of the big differences between today's conservatives (Jeffersonian liberals) and the progressive leftists who identify as liberal.  The leftists will use any tool they can find, from castigating those who believe otherwise as evil to taking over organizations like the AAPA, to force their agenda on others.

[CAdamsPAC]

You nailed it as to why I am a non-AAPA, PA political and Social Justice Warriors are not what I expect from my "Professional" representation  organizations.

[Boatswain2PA]

2 hours ago, mcclane said:

You guys are welcome to hold these beliefs, but they do not align with vast preponderance of established public health science.

But the vast preponderance of established public health "science" is incredibly biased toward the liberal/big government/leftist ideology.  Selection bias in such "science" skews it toward things we can DO to save lives, but ignores the socio-political-historical aspects of what they propose.

Best example is, again, gun control.  Those who advocate for increased gun control measures use data points that highlight the very real damages of guns in society.  But they completely ignore the historical socio-political risks of an unarmed society.  It would take centuries for our gun-homicide numbers to equal the numbers killed by totalitarian governments after disarming their populace....but that is never considered by the "established public health science".

Same thing with abortion.  Public health "experts" focus on the benefits of abortion on maternal health, while ignoring the socio-political implications such as the reduction of minority populations, let alone the moral damage to society (which is much harder to measure).

[Cideous]

23 minutes ago, Boatswain2PA said:

But the vast preponderance of established public health "science" is incredibly biased toward the liberal/big government/leftist ideology.  Selection bias in such "science" skews it toward things we can DO to save lives, but ignores the socio-political-historical aspects of what they propose.

Best example is, again, gun control.  Those who advocate for increased gun control measures use data points that highlight the very real damages of guns in society.  But they completely ignore the historical socio-political risks of an unarmed society.  It would take centuries for our gun-homicide numbers to equal the numbers killed by totalitarian governments after disarming their populace....but that is never considered by the "established public health science".

Same thing with abortion.  Public health "experts" focus on the benefits of abortion on maternal health, while ignoring the socio-political implications such as the reduction of minority populations, let alone the moral damage to society (which is much harder to measure).

That is complete bullshit.  

I love when extreme right wingers throw out the facts of science when it suits them.  Climate change?  Hoax!  Even though 99% of all reputable scientists agree it's real and we are causing it.  Using phrases like "big government" "liberal/leftist" to impregnate the minds of the not so educated and give them someone to hate and blame other than themselves for their lot in life.

And for the record, your boy Trump has just taken the mantle of biggest debt maker in the history of this country.  Yea him!  I have a new hat for you and him.  Make America Broke Again!  Absolutely fascinating how you guys RAIL against debt and big govt until one of your nuts gets into office.  I've not heard a peep from the Tea Party since Trump started racking up debt.  Hypocrites in the extreme.

[rev ronin]

Gentlemen, please start a different thread.

This is not about who is right.  This is about diluting the political clout of the AAPA by trying to codify who is "right" and who is "outside the mainstream"

[CAdamsPAC]

2 hours ago, Boatswain2PA said:

But the vast preponderance of established public health "science" is incredibly biased toward the liberal/big government/leftist ideology.  Selection bias in such "science" skews it toward things we can DO to save lives, but ignores the socio-political-historical aspects of what they propose.

Best example is, again, gun control.  Those who advocate for increased gun control measures use data points that highlight the very real damages of guns in society.  But they completely ignore the historical socio-political risks of an unarmed society.  It would take centuries for our gun-homicide numbers to equal the numbers killed by totalitarian governments after disarming their populace....but that is never considered by the "established public health science".

Same thing with abortion.  Public health "experts" focus on the benefits of abortion on maternal health, while ignoring the socio-political implications such as the reduction of minority populations, let alone the moral damage to society (which is much harder to measure).

I wish that AAPA and state chapters would not join the SJW crowd.Love you Boats!!!

Edited October 31, 2019 by CAdamsPAC