A Word Is Not a Crystal

A Word is Not a Crystal In 1947, a paper entitled "What's in a Name?" by Glenn Sonnedecker was presented before the APhA Section on General Practice of Pharmacy, and published in the August 1948, issue of this Journal. This presentation led the Association to recommend that further action was required to bring about a more standard and effective usage of language to express what pharmacy represents. A special Committee on Professional Terminology was appointed and subsequently submitted "A Glossary of Professional Terms in Pharmacy" published in this Journal in August 1952. The committee noted that "the objective has not been to concoct something revolutionary or impressively pedantic" as it submitted those common terms and singled out those words and descriptive phrases which are most accurate and effective for general use. In 1962, the APhA House of Delegates resolved that "the 1952 report of the Committee on Professional Terminology be brought up to date and made readily available as a useful aid in communicating properly within the profession and to other professions and the public." In April 1962, we published an editorial entitled "Signs, Symbols and Speech" in which it was notedWe must beware that we do not contaminate and otherwise destroy our newer terminology by continuing to emphasize commercial interests and merchandising practices to the detriment of professional practice. We must not permit such terms as 'community pharmacy' [a term coined in the early 1960's] to become tainted with an image of commercialism in a way that the term 'druggist' now finds itself. And in the June 22, 1963, issue of the APhA Newsletter a brief report on pharmaceutical terminology was published. During recent years, the problem has developed into two areas. One is providing an updated glossary of acceptable terms such as "community pharmacy," "patient" and "dispensing." The other is defining and determining the appropriate use of such terms as "clinical pharmacy," "institutional pharmacy," "group practice," and "consultant pharmacist." The 1972 report of the APhA Policy Committees (which will be acted upon by the APhA House of Delegates by the time most members read this editorial) address themselves to some of these terms. For example one committee has recommended that "pharmacy should not be identified as 'clinical pharmacy' and pharmacists should not be identified as 'clinical pharmacists' because clinical experience is a part of pharmacy practice." The Report of the Task Force on the Definition of Clinical Pharmacy, Institutional Pharmacy and Group Practice (reviewed in detail in the 1972 Report of the APhA Policy Committee on Professional Affairs), and the ASHP "Report on Group Practice of Pharmacy" (issued February 22, 1972) points out the need for a clear and precise use of terminology. The provocative article by Barker and Valentino in this issue places major emphasis on the "political and legal foundation for clinical pharmacy," while the February ASHP report is heavily oriented toward the business and legal aspects of the "group practice" mechanism. Floyd Brown of Windsor, Canada, one of the pioneers of the "group practice" concept (see this Journal, April 1964), writes on March 21, 1972I am concerned that the further defining of a concept of a group of keen specialized pharmacists practicing as a team in a community setting must await a more universally recognized understanding of what functions the pharmacist performs and why such performance is vital. As recently as February 1972, we editorialized on the need to provide a meaningful definition of "pharmaceutical service" that will implant proper professional concepts of the profession of pharmacy in the minds of allied health professions and the public. Hopefully, the Institute for Motivational Research study, to be described in greater detail in Houston, will provide some guidance in developing a new glossary of professional terminology by giving us a better insight into what the public perceives as the meaning of certain terms pharmacy is currently using. We can then proceed with a codification of the policy positions of the APhA into a useful document for a better understanding of the meaning of our pharmaceutical vocabulary. In achieving our goal, let us again be reminded of the words of Justice Holmes in 1918, who statedA word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.

-George B. Griffenhagen Vol. NS12, No.5, May 1972

201