Re: The H. P. Profession

[rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

David Lee has publically posed an important question to me re the motivation
of the ABHP (see below) which certainly is deserving of a reply.
Unfortunately, I am not the proper person for the the rationale used by the
ABHP -- an independent arm of the Academy -- should be provided by them.
Note that while the ABHP is indeed a part of the Academy, it operates
independently with respect to setting the standards for ABHP certification,
this being done to ensure the integrity of the certification process and to
free it from undue influence by the main body of CHP's known as the Academy.

However, with some reluctance I offer some personal insights (including
later on what I think was the ABHP rationale), on this emotionally charged
and contentious issue.  Since the ABHP grants the certification, it would
appear that this body can justifiably establish any criteria they choose, so
long as they do not discriminate against a protected class (ie on the basis
of race, religion, ethnic background etc.) or otherwise violate the law.  If
the standards (including the fees) that they establish for certification are
manifestly unreasonable, then the process will fall of its own weight.  On a
personal level, if an individual finds the standards unreasonable, odious,
too difficult or undesirable to obtain, then that person can, as a free
citizen in a free society, choose not to seek certification.  On the other
hand, if one cannot meet the established criteria, but feels that
certification is desirable, then an alternate choice is availble: do what
needs to be done to meet the requirements, just as one would have to do to
obtain other certifications or licenses -- eg ordained minister, priest or
rabbi, Certified Public Accountant, certified auto mechanic, Professional
Engineer, licensed real estate agent, registered sanitarian, or Diplomate of
the American board of Internal Medicine or Diplomate of the American Board
of Medical Physics.

Certainly a basic (if not the fundamental) purpose of
licensure/certification is protection of the public.
Licensure/certification processes are by their nature clearly imperfect, but
they increase the liklihood that those they annoint will be competent
professionals.  Not all lawyers, physicians, clergymen, social workers,
psychologists, and yes, even certified health physicists are competent.
Certainly they are not knowledgeable or competent in all aspects of their
chosen professions.  Even the best make mistakes -- certainly I have made my
share.  And, although a CHP, I do not by any means know all there is to know
about radiation protection but I do hope I know my limitations.  (Please
don't ask me anything about nonionizing radiation.  Now plutonium, that's
another story .  .  .   And, to those who have criticized CHP's for making
errors, or for being less than perfect, let me ask if they themselves are
error free.  One much wiser than I said it all so nicely 20 centuries ago:
Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone.)  

Humans do make mistakes; by requiring degrees from accredited institutions,
specific courses, certain kinds of work experience, demonstration of
communication ability and competency via technical reports, achievement of a
minimum level score on a written exam, licensing and certifying bodies
including the ABHP attempt to minimize the liklihood that the public will
suffer from human error.  Obviously the process, being developed by humans,
is less than perfect. 

An engineering degree from an ABET accredited school plus several years of
experience is required in every American licensing jurisdiction in order to
sit for the PE exam.  Such was not always the case; not so many years back,
a person could sit for the exam with a degree in a physical science, or with
no degree at all if they had sufficent suitable work experience.  Similarly,
not so many years ago, only a hospital based 'apprenticeship' course was
required to obtain the R.N.  Today the B.S. is required in some states.
Pharmacy, which early in this century was a one year program, is now a six
year program leading to the Pharm.D.

Why these changes have occurred is obvious.  Our society has become more
complex, our knowledge base has expanded, and practitioners of these and
other professions, including health physics, not only need to have greater
knowledge, but they also need to have the capability of understanding
situations and solving problems that are far more complex than those of a
generation ago.  So, greater knowledge is required.  A college degree may
not provide this knowledge, but it is indicative of a certain level of
ability and of a certain level of attainment,among other things.  While it
is regrettable that some qualified individuals will be denied certification
because they lack the requisite degree, I believe that the certification
process overall will be strengthened to the benefit of the public by the
action of the ABHP, which I believe is warranted by our ever increasingly
complex society.  If this be elitism, so be it; I think it is simply quality
assurance -- a way of trying to further ensure that the public is protected
not only from radiation, but from persons who, well meaning as they may be,
simply are not qualified.  I think and certainly this was underlying
motivation of the ABHP.  And, as President-Elect of the Academy, I am
committed to ensuring that our members are competent, ethical and
professional insofar as is humanly possible, and that the public, employers,
regulatory agencies etc. will come to equate the letters CHP with integrity
and competency.

This does not mean that one cannot be a professional health physicist and be
non-degreed.  Some of the best and most knowledgeable HP's that I have had
the pleasure of working with did not have degrees, and more than a few were
CHP's.  But the times are changing, and what was acceptable when our
profession was young is no longer acceptable today.  So it is with all
professions and indeed even with our way of life.

The arguments that have been offered are in many case semantic. The word
'professional' has many meanings and many more nuances.  It is analagous to
the use of the word 'exposure' which can be used in its general sense or in
its more specific and rigorously defined sense (ie that quantity of x- or
gamma radiation .  .  . )

I recognize that some will disagree and may even be offended by these
thoughts.  Hopefully, they will not engender any discourteous and
unprofessional responses, although from past experience I expect that this
will not be the case. For those who have stuck with me this long, I hope
that you did not find the time to be totally wasted.  And to all, apologies
for this long winded dissertation. 

Ron Kathren, CHP

 

'poAt 11:38 AM 9/12/97 -0500, David W. Lee wrote:
>	I second Sandy's comments.  The thinking process that the American Board
>of HP used to impose their recent Bachelor degree requirment has not been
>answered.  What I find curious about this is that their are active
>RADSAFERS in the American Academy of HP, such as Ron Kathern and Dan Strom,
>who ought to be able to shed some light on the thinking used by the AAHP in
>imposing this degree requirment.  Can Ron perhaps suggest a name of someone
>in the AAHP who might have been present when the board decision was made to
>impose this degree requirment, the rationale for it, etc.?  Radsafer Joyce
>Davis is on the AAHP Professional Standards and Ethics Committee, but the
>text of her most recent comment on this issue indicated to me that this
>committee and she, herself, were not involved in the actual AAHP meeting
>where this degree requirement was decided.
>
>	There seems to be a curious unwillingness of any of the AAHP
>officers/directors to provide accurate information regarding the rationale
>for the degree requirement.
>
>Best regards  David