Hello All:
I cannot help but agree with Evan's comments. However, I would like to emphasise that
with or without this
particular discussion thread I find that in my own work as an OT , and in the work of
other OTs whom I know
(including some senior OTs), as well as in the literature and texts (that I have come
across) that OT is an
extremely diverse profession. In fact this is its strength.
In my opinion each OT interprets the idea of "occupation" in their own way, and based
on what is meaningful
for the client. In fact the idea of occupation is virtually transparent in actual
practice. And generally
one cannot categorically distinguish any OTs practice as being occupation-based or
otherwise, without either
talking to the OT and understanding her/his reasoning, or without knowing the client
clinically.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong if an OT practice focuses on Upper Extremity
dysfunction. In fact I
don't even think that it is in any way contradictory to "occupation-based" practice of
OT. Occupation-based
practice is largely a matter of how the OT views client's goals, and the
intervention/treatment approach the
OT may adopt. I don't recall *ever* seeing any evidence in the literature which
either considers U/E focus
in OT as compromising the role of OT, or undermining the OT profession as a whole.
And I cannot imagine
where the idea or concept of "UE PT" may have originated from. To even suggest that
UE (or for that matter
any performance component) is exclusively linked to any particular profession other
than OT (in this case
PT), actually diminishes the OT role. And I realize that by saying this I might be
turning this discussion
over on its head. However, I think all OTs need to practice their profession based on
their own
understanding of what OT means to them. Just as the OT profession is not prescriptive
with its clients, we
cannot be prescriptive with any particular definition of OT where our own fellow OTs
are concerned.
Regards,
Biraj
Ron Carson wrote:
> Hello Donna:
>
> I am sorry but I have difficulty understanding how
> "[taking] on roles similar to what some refer to as UE PT" is good for our
> profession. While it may be good for the pocketbooks of those OT practicing
> like PT's, I don't understand how it's good for the profession. To
> me, OT's practicing like UE PT's are hindering the profession, not expanding
> it.
>
> Ron
>
> ----------
> On 2/24/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Said:
> Mac> Evan, I must agree with your point of view on this matter......when I
> Mac> graduated in '99 as a COTA, there were very few jobs available. Our
> Mac> professors told us it was our responsibility to "be creative" in finding some
> Mac> kind of niche in order to get into the profession. Many of my fellow
> Mac> graduates have had to take on roles similar to what some refer to as UE PTs,
> Mac> home health care, therapeutic rec, and various other off-sets of OT. As long
> Mac> as we keep in mind our philosophy in treating the whole person, and
> Mac> maintaining/improving function, I believe we are expanding the perspective of
> Mac> what OT is and how valuable it is in all settings. Every one of us has to be
> Mac> an advocate for OT every chance we get..........Donna
>
> ---------
>
> *Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's body,
>put the following text:
> unsubscribe list
>
> OTnow messages are archived at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------
---------
*Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's body, put
the following text:
unsubscribe list
OTnow messages are archived at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------
