on 2/23/01 5:29 PM, Ron Carson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello John and Thanks for Responding:
>
> I want to offer the proverbial olive branch to John and others who may be
> offended, mad or anything else because of my comments. Based on previous
> experience, I know it is easy for these professional debates to digress or
> be misconstrued as personal attacks.
>
> Please understand that my comments are NOT directed to any person and are
> not meant to be an attack on the person's worth or dignity. Instead, I hope
> to discuss issues relating to the practice of OT. It is however, difficult
> to talk about OT practice without occasional reference to individuals doing
> the treatment.
>
> All this being said, I have interspersed my comments with John's original
> message.
Ron,
I find your recent behavior on the list troubling in many ways. You seem to
have appointed yourself as the current guardian of the OT profession as a
whole, and appear to feel that you alone should decide what OT is and is
not.
I your recent posting of conversations from other sources should serve as a
warning to others to be very careful about how you word something because
you may find yourself accused of breaking the law.
If I were you, I would be exceedingly uncomfortable with some of my
statements. If I read you correctly, you have just told the world (yes
entire world) that John should have his license pulled. If I were you, I
would re read the Occupational Therapy code of ethics. Particularly the
part about treating others professionals with respect and honesty. If John
were to be the vindictive type, he might take what you said as professional
slander and seek civil monetary damages.
The other thing that bothers me is that as a fairly strict occupational
performance practicioner (you are in practice aren't you), your postion is
simply one of many current theories that make up our profession. I would be
interested to see if your own practice could stand up to the rigors of your
occupational science model.
I respect Johns position becuase he has been able to adapt to a practice
setting that apparently divides the body up into two areas. I understand
your discomfort with it, Just I am uncomfortable with the current SNF system
which seems to define OT a dressing, eating, bathing, John and others who
are out in the real world of OT are often faced with difficult choices.
These choices often mean the difference between staying in your practice
setting and doing some good or having your service become irrelevant becuase
it does not fit into the payors models.
I have been critical in the past of academic practicioners becuase I dont
think that academia has always been the cutting edge of OT. If you look at
other professions, the heros of those professions are often the people who
are in practice. In our profession that would be people such as Lorna Jean
King. I think there is a lot of good OT happening at the community level.
But I digress. My point is that the occupational theories are a refreshing
return to the earlier practice of OT and we should continue. But as someone
recently said, we cannot hang our hat on occupation alone. We must also
consider the occupational performance areas (Dunn Model) and address those
as needed. To simply say that I am an occupational performance practicioner
ignors the components behind occupational performance, and makes OT less
viable for the future, not more viable. Being strict occupational
performace practicioner who ignors the functional component areas is sort
of like the bibilcal story of building ones house on sandy ground as opposed
to solid ground.
I realize that in the past, you have not let the facts or the vote get in
the way of you having your opinion, but I hope you will be more respectful
of your colleagues on the list.
With Respect,
Evan Kay
---------
Send commands to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Put commands in the messages BODY not in the
SUBJECT
unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[unsubscribe from the list]
subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[subscribe to the list]
subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[subscribe to the digested version of the list]
help
[receive help on sending commands]
---------
