Re: HP Profession?

[michael_coogen@hq.dla.mil]

I haven't really followed through on all the replies relating to what is 
considered to be a "professional".  I will leave the board membership with a 
quote that I once read.  It follows: "WE MAKE A LIVING BY WHAT WE GET PAID; WE 
MAKE A LIFE BY WHAT WE GIVE...Powerful words...mike coogen sends

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: HP Profession?
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet
Date:    9/12/97 1:49 PM


Group:
     
We've had this discussion before.  It becomes emotional because we use the 
word "professional" in different ways.  We sometime use it to describe 
personal characteristics, "a real professional" or "unprofessional." 
Strictly speaking a profession has to do with the JOB, not the person who 
does the job.  (With all due respect to Scott's father, in most states it 
is illegal to call yourself a PROFESSIONAL engineer without a license.)  I 
hope we can all be "professional" and not take the comments as personal 
insults.
     
Even in relationship to a job, the word has been diluted in recent years: 
it just means you get paid for your work.  Today you can even be a 
"professional" athlete or soldier!  Traditionally, though, it has to do 
with public service and safety.  The main characteristic of a profession is 
that its practice involves substantial risk to the public in an area where 
members of the public cannot adequately judge the practioner's 
qualifications independently because most of us don't have the requisite 
specialized training.  The prototypes are doctors, engineers, lawyers, 
accountants, etc.  All these require a long, formal training process and an 
exam at the end in order to practice independently.  The board exam is NOT 
the principal way for establishing competence; the training and experience 
process is the weeding-out step.  The board (or bar) exam is the final step 
that catches the occasional dud that makes it through the training.
     
Doctors often employ PAs and RNs and engineering firms often employ 
unlicensed engineers to work under the supervision of a licensed doctor or 
engineer.  But they are not allowed to work independently without this 
supervision.  Maybe the PA or RN could help a lot of people; maybe the 
non-PE engineer could design a solid bridge.  But society has decided that 
they cannot try without formal training.  Non-CPA accountants are not 
allowed to perform formal audits of corporations, etc. etc.
     
In the past I have advocated that we follow the model of lawyers, PEs, and 
physicians, etc., by requiring some kind of certification before anyone can 
practice health physics independently.  (Look in the radsafe archive for my 
posts.)  However, after thinking about it a little more, I have concluded 
that HP is not a "profession" in the traditional sense of the word.  Health 
physics is a fine job, even a vocation, but it's not a profession.  (1) As 
many have attested, it isn't hard to become competent in this field without 
formal training.  (You can even get an HP master's degree over the 
internet!  That seems awfully close to self-study.)  We don't even have a 
universally accepted training model like doctors and lawyers.  (2) It's 
really unlikely that anyone would be physically hurt by an RSO's mistaken 
judgement.  In most cases, we're basically technical administrators working 
with fairly cut-and-dry regulations.  It's not like the early days, when 
things were decided up as you went.  (Note that Keith Dinger's Pres-elect 
speech is about the transition of HP to an operational field.)
     
It goes without saying that this does not demean our role.  We're not the 
same as doctors and lawyers, but we're not less important.  I just don't 
think you can make a case that the public would be put at risk without a 
licensed profession.  In our case, the board exam seems to be more geared 
toward demonstrating competence to our peers, not the public.
     
Just my view,
     
Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu