From: Tony Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dear folks,
Does anyone else remember an AGM where a motion was passed that we would be
known as 'radiographers'? I think it may have been Ayers Rock but it could have been
Melbourne. Can someone please check the minutes?
Peter, I think that you make a very good point but Fred Murphy's point is also valid
and
much more important in the long term, in my opinion. We need to move forward.
I have a long enough memory in this profession now to recall the AIR's previous
'committee for the future' or whatever (I can't remember what it was called but I can
remember discussing the green paper at one national conference - ? Bathurst). I
remember that they (the committee) were criticised because the only issue they
discussed with any vigour was exactly the one that's being discussed in this e-mail
forum now. Why is that? Is a name that important that it dominates all such
discussions about where we're headed professionally? Why can't we move on?
Just in case there's a perception that there's a lack of issues have you read the
paper
in the December 2002 issue of 'The Radiographer' about role development for medical
imaging practitioners in Australia. Why can't we get on with those developments
instead of getting bogged down on this relatively minor issue?
Surely the Commonwealth Government would be unimpreseed (to say the least) if they
knew that our energies were going into this discussion. The head of Diagnostics and
Technology didn't have any trouble identifying which health profession he wanted to
talk with about radiographer reporting in 2001. Nor did he have any trouble
identifying
which conference he wanted to send some 10 delegates to in Coffs Harbour in 2002.
We never did capitalise on that opportunity though. The inertia was too great. We
just
continue along the same old path and, it seems, retrace the same worn footsteps.
I would also like to point out that doctors are also called medical practitioners,
family
practitioners, general practitioners, paediatricians, geriatricians (subtly different
from
gereontologists), suregons (with all of their sub-specialities), etc etc. They have
dozens
of colleges and professional associations. In rural health alone the doctors have
several different organisations, as do nurses. We are just in the process of filling a
position for a cardiorespiratory physiotherapist so it seems there are more than one
type of physiotherapist. My dad was a pharmacist but also called a pharceutical
practitioner and a chemist on occasions. Pharmacists also have community
pharmacists associations and hospital pharmacists associations. In other words other
health professions have 'professional sub-groups' and specialities. It's normal
professional behaviour to specialise and set-up a representative body for each =
sub-group. If in doubt check the literature.
During this discussion a few people have said 'what's in a name...'. Even Shakespeare
said it! Let's get over it and move onto the real issues like making our profession
mean
something to the community and developing our role so that we can make healthcare
better.
Tony
Tony Smith
Senior Lecturer in
Medical Radiation Science
University Department of Rural Health - Nrthn NSW
Ph: (02) 6761 9510 {Int:+61+2+6761 9510}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/28/03 14:47 PM >>>
From: Peter Rouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What's in a name?
While this argument seems to keep reappearing it may well be=20
fundamental to the future direction of the profession.
For example, formally, informally and legislatively:-
"WE" =3D Radiographer
Medical Imaging Technologist
Medical Imaging Practitioner
Medical Imaging Scientist
Medical Radiation Practioner
Medical Radiation Scientist
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologist
Magnetic Resonance Radiographer
Ultrasonographer
Sonographer
Mammographer
Radiotherapist
Radiotherapy technologist
Radiation Therapist
However "like" Professions :
Pharmacist =3D Pharmacist
Chiropractor =3D Chiropractor
Speech Therapist =3D Speech Therapist
Nurse =3D Nurse
Physiotherapist =3D Physiotherapist
Radiologist =3D Radiologist
Social Worker =3D Social worker
All of the latter professions have a significant number of specialities =
but
their public, political and educational faces are as one. Currently, =
who=20
Do you think the community, politicians and lobbyists would ask regarding
issues that may directly impact on us? Well, they would go to who they
"know" represents a view (i.e. 1=3D1).
A "name" is fundamental. One name. Tough (but vital) times ahead.
Peter
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
This message is being broadcast by AIRNEWS,
the Australian Institute of Radiography list Server
Send messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For assistance send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Commands should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions expressed on this list are not necessarily those of the
moderator, his assistants or those of the A.I.R.
