This year's annual meeting in Denver was outstanding! I should like to thank Meeting Host, Joy Hawkins as well as Stewart Hinckley and his excellent staff at Ruggles for organizing and directing such an excellent meeting. And I especially should like to thank every participant in the scientific and educational programs. The Fred Hehre and "What's New" lectures given by Drs. Sheila Cohen, Larry Gilstrap, Callie Hoyt, and Susan Townsend were of exceptional quality. The Practice Management Workshop and the Breakfast with the Experts led by Drs. Patricia Dailey and Chris Rout, respectively were helpful and well attended. The posters were ably reviewed by Drs. Don Penning and David Wlody. Some attendees continue to talk about the four superb debates an excellent addition to the program these last several years. And hearty congratulations go to the recipients of this year's awards (listed elsewhere in this newsletter). Special congratulations go to Dr. Ezzat Abouleish, recipient of the 1999 Nils Lofgren Award.
This year's meeting was preceded by an all-day meeting of the Long-Range Planning Committee, which was appointed and convened by Past-President, David Birnbach. Many of you will recall the results of the last SOAP Long-Range Planning Committee in 1993. That committee's recommendations led to the decisions to engage professional management, separate the presidency from the meeting host, establish standing committees with defined responsibilities and objectives, and redefine the criteria for membership. Most if not all of us would agree that SOAP is a stronger society today as a result of the vision of the 1993 Long-Range Planning Committee. Now another Long-Range Planning Committee has met and thoughtfully considered the current state and health of SOAP. David Birnbach has summarized the committee's recommendations and the rationale for same elsewhere in this newsletter. I encourage you to read his summary in its entirety.
Without attempting to duplicate David's discussion, I should like to offer some personal thoughts regarding the committee's recommendations and the future of SOAP:
Historically, SOAP has been a society of modest size, largely composed of anesthesiologists who identify themselves as obstetric anesthesiologists. Some members practice obstetric anesthesia full- time; others participate in other areas of anesthesia practice, but identify themselves as obstetric anesthesiologists. The majority of "active" members practice in an academic setting. The Long- Range Planning Committee has suggested that we should make a greater effort to include a much larger group of community hospital anesthesiologists, who provide obstetric anesthesia as part of their "general practice."
Some might attempt to frame this debate as exclusivism versus inclusivism. Perhaps those labels help define the debate, but I believe that they evoke an unnecessarily emotional response. I contend that there is nothing inherently wrong with either model! On the one hand, we might decide that we prefer to remain a relatively small society, and retain the opportunity to meet once a year with a relatively small group of individuals of like mind and interest. Some other societies (e.g., AUA) make no apology for limiting their membership to a small group. Advocates of this approach will undoubtedly call attention to the fact that membership is open to all anesthesiologists, and that we already invite all "general" anesthesiologists to attend our meetings. However, these members may prefer to maintain the unique, historical character of SOAP, and not attempt to be "all things to all anesthesiologists."
Alternatively, other members will argue that our failure to attract more "general" community anesthesiologists has limited our ability to affect the practice of obstetric anesthesia in many community hospitals. (Most deliveries occur in hospitals not represented by SOAP membership.) They may argue that we incur the risk of isolation, and that our research is often considered irrelevant to the practice of obstetric anesthesia in the "real world." Further, some members will call attention to the potential economic consequences of limited membership.
This debate is not a matter of right versus wrong. Each of these positions may be argued successfully. But the question remains: What kind of society do we want SOAP to be?
This will be a tough, spirited, but hopefully collegial debate. What is the nature and purpose of SOAP? What kind of society do we want SOAP to be? It is our society, and we will make these decisions together.
David H. Chestnut, MD