This post was published at, and has been shared by the APHA Blog.
It is provided so you can find it in a search here at myAPHA.org, but you’ll need to link to the original post to read it in its entirety.
Find the link to the entire post at the end of this excerpt.
“Health Advocate” vs “Patient Advocate”: 7 Reasons the Debate Is a Waste of Time
Although you may not realize it, there is a debate raging about titles in advocacy. I chose this topic today not because I have an opinion on THE right title; rather because I think the debate is a waste of time, and is a distraction from the more important work of helping people understand how advocates and care managers can help them. The debate is this: Should we be called Health Advocates? Or should we be called Patient Advocates? It might surprise you to know that some people not only have very definite opinions on the answer to that question, but that they argue the point for hours at a time. In my (not so) humble opinion, for every hour they argue, they could instead have promoted advocacy and the many benefits to working with an advocate – no matter what he or she is called. Here are the reasons I think this argument is a waste of time: Waste of Time Reason #1: What we call ourselves is far less important than what those who need our services call us. It’s the marketplace that determines what we are called. We are known by a variety of titles, depending on how they are introduced to the concept. Advocate, navigator, case or care manager, facilitator, negotiator, representative, ombudsman and others. These titles are no reflection on the quality of services we provide. Waste of Time Reason #2: What you want to be called – vs – what you are called may always be two different things. Example: Years ago I was a newspaper columnist, writing on patient empowerment topics. My editor insisted that for consistency sake, we always use the word “doctor” and never the word “physician.” I’m sure there were some MDs who disliked that choice, but the newspaper’s editorial choice was to ignore them. The editors chose one word, and used only that word, with no regard to what doctors/physicians preferred. Again, that was no reflection on the quality of their medical care. It was simply an editorial choice. Waste of Time Reason #3: Health Advocates and Patient Advocates…