Jump to content

PA Title Change Debate at AAPA Impact 2012 HOD


Recommended Posts

I went to Toronto expecting a large, vocal push from the majority of the PAs to be supporting the motion to change the name, aka my ears were "tuning into that station" That was NOT the case. There were some obvious supporters of the it but those were far outnumbered by those opposed, both on the HOD floor and at the evening discussion (Saturday night).

This is a philosophy within the AAPA which pervasive. They are looking inward at what the academy wants, not outward at what PAs want.

 

Money is cited as one of the huge drawbacks of the move, my observations revealed that apathy was another drawback. Many, many, many folks said "changing the name WON"T change how patients see us...run a effective PR program or let the Pro Name Change folks self finance it.

 

How would they know that if they haven't done the research to understand the ramifications of the name change?

And how exactly is it fair that these detractors dismiss the name change, a small separate group funds it, and then those very PAs that denied it end up reaping the benefits if it happens?

 

I realize that there are a lot of people in favor of changing the name change, I am able to do some simple math and figure out the survey results. However, those people did not convince their peers.

 

Convince them how? No external analysis was done to detrmine the effects of the name change if it were to happen.

 

I would even venture to say that once some of those 6000+ "Aye" votes learned how much the cost was, they may have even changed their stance.

 

We have NO idea what the costs will be. There has been no study. You sound like you already know the costs will be "too high", whatever that may mean.

 

I know the issue is not dead yet but if the Name Change committee wants this to happen, they have more leg work to do.

 

On that I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I went to Toronto expecting a large, vocal push from the majority of the PAs to be supporting the motion to change the name, aka my ears were "tuning into that station" That was NOT the case. There were some obvious supporters of the it but those were far outnumbered by those opposed, both on the HOD floor and at the evening discussion (Saturday night).

This is a philosophy within the AAPA which pervasive. They are looking inward at what the academy wants, not outward at what PAs want.

 

Money is cited as one of the huge drawbacks of the move, my observations revealed that apathy was another drawback. Many, many, many folks said "changing the name WON"T change how patients see us...run a effective PR program or let the Pro Name Change folks self finance it.

 

How would they know that if they haven't done the research to understand the ramifications of the name change?

And how exactly is it fair that these detractors dismiss the name change, a small separate group funds it, and then those very PAs that denied it end up reaping the benefits if it happens?

 

I realize that there are a lot of people in favor of changing the name change, I am able to do some simple math and figure out the survey results. However, those people did not convince their peers.

 

Convince them how? No external analysis was done to detrmine the effects of the name change if it were to happen.

 

I would even venture to say that once some of those 6000+ "Aye" votes learned how much the cost was, they may have even changed their stance.

 

We have NO idea what the costs will be. There has been no study. You sound like you already know the costs will be "too high", whatever that may mean.

 

I know the issue is not dead yet but if the Name Change committee wants this to happen, they have more leg work to do.

 

On that I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

interesting aside:

I just spent 9 days in Haiti with 2 other PA's. neither of them had even heard of the name change debate or voted in the aapa poll.

one was "pro" once we discussed it(she is an em pa) and the other said it didn't matter as her job is a first assistant in plastic surgery and she is respected by the 1 doc she woks with.

this is the avg pa out there, out of touch with the profession and uninvoled with the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

interesting aside:

I just spent 9 days in Haiti with 2 other PA's. neither of them had even heard of the name change debate or voted in the aapa poll.

one was "pro" once we discussed it(she is an em pa) and the other said it didn't matter as her job is a first assistant in plastic surgery and she is respected by the 1 doc she woks with.

this is the avg pa out there, out of touch with the profession and uninvoled with the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

interesting aside:

I just spent 9 days in Haiti with 2 other PA's. neither of them had even heard of the name change debate or voted in the aapa poll.

one was "pro" once we discussed it(she is an em pa) and the other said it didn't matter as her job is a first assistant in plastic surgery and she is respected by the 1 doc she woks with.

this is the avg pa out there, out of touch with the profession and uninvoled with the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what all surveys and what the "democracy" that you cite are supposed to do- represent those who are involved.

Or as another members posted here:

 

 

You discount the results because not enough people responded? If they felt strongly enough to vote it down then why did they not show up?

And re: a clear majority- first, there was a clear majority in 16 states and a plurality in an additional 21 states.

Do you discount the presidential elections where the winner won by plurality? (There have been 16)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories

 

So, 6500 pro-name change petitioners and census results cited above is not enough evidence of a sufficient groundswell for support?

By elected officials, you mean house delegates and the BOD?

Those individuals currently in office have stated by their votes and individual statements that they feel the name change is a detriment, too costly, and not worth further investigation based on an internal analysis. Given that they have previously made their personal interpetations clear, it is no surprise that they would arrive at the judgment that they did. It does not reflect the desires of their constituents. Who are they representing- PAs, or themselves?

 

The US house is a poor example since their votes are public record. Individual PAs have NO record of their delegates votes and thus there is no accountability.

 

The people have been ignored. The resolutions were not voting to change the name. They were voting to study the ramifications of a name change.

6500 PAs writing the AAPA in support, and the census numbers above are not enough to justify looking into the matter further?

 

Insulting to PAs across the country who depend on our leaders to represent our interests.

Nicely said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what all surveys and what the "democracy" that you cite are supposed to do- represent those who are involved.

Or as another members posted here:

 

 

You discount the results because not enough people responded? If they felt strongly enough to vote it down then why did they not show up?

And re: a clear majority- first, there was a clear majority in 16 states and a plurality in an additional 21 states.

Do you discount the presidential elections where the winner won by plurality? (There have been 16)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories

 

So, 6500 pro-name change petitioners and census results cited above is not enough evidence of a sufficient groundswell for support?

By elected officials, you mean house delegates and the BOD?

Those individuals currently in office have stated by their votes and individual statements that they feel the name change is a detriment, too costly, and not worth further investigation based on an internal analysis. Given that they have previously made their personal interpetations clear, it is no surprise that they would arrive at the judgment that they did. It does not reflect the desires of their constituents. Who are they representing- PAs, or themselves?

 

The US house is a poor example since their votes are public record. Individual PAs have NO record of their delegates votes and thus there is no accountability.

 

The people have been ignored. The resolutions were not voting to change the name. They were voting to study the ramifications of a name change.

6500 PAs writing the AAPA in support, and the census numbers above are not enough to justify looking into the matter further?

 

Insulting to PAs across the country who depend on our leaders to represent our interests.

Nicely said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what all surveys and what the "democracy" that you cite are supposed to do- represent those who are involved.

Or as another members posted here:

 

 

You discount the results because not enough people responded? If they felt strongly enough to vote it down then why did they not show up?

And re: a clear majority- first, there was a clear majority in 16 states and a plurality in an additional 21 states.

Do you discount the presidential elections where the winner won by plurality? (There have been 16)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States'_presidential_plurality_victories

 

So, 6500 pro-name change petitioners and census results cited above is not enough evidence of a sufficient groundswell for support?

By elected officials, you mean house delegates and the BOD?

Those individuals currently in office have stated by their votes and individual statements that they feel the name change is a detriment, too costly, and not worth further investigation based on an internal analysis. Given that they have previously made their personal interpetations clear, it is no surprise that they would arrive at the judgment that they did. It does not reflect the desires of their constituents. Who are they representing- PAs, or themselves?

 

The US house is a poor example since their votes are public record. Individual PAs have NO record of their delegates votes and thus there is no accountability.

 

The people have been ignored. The resolutions were not voting to change the name. They were voting to study the ramifications of a name change.

6500 PAs writing the AAPA in support, and the census numbers above are not enough to justify looking into the matter further?

 

Insulting to PAs across the country who depend on our leaders to represent our interests.

Nicely said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More