Hi Ron: A lot of what you say is based on assumptions you seem to draw, for e.g. you say, " I just hate to see OT's fall into the trap of thinking that exercise is the 'only' or even best way to promote health". Who are these OTs who have fallen into this trap??
Secondly, it is true that exercise and physical activity is a cornerstone of fitness, no matter at what age one undertakes it. It is a basic health fact. However, it sounds that if you had your way you would re-label all activities (whether excercise or anything else) formally as "occupation". I don't quite get your perspective, all activities that human beings perform is an "occupation" but it needn't be viewed by everyone from an "occupational" perspective. That is the very reason we are OTs because we have the training and an appreciation of people as occupational beings. Somehow, based on your frequent and formal emphasis on the term "occupation" I am beginning to think that you would like everyone in the world to think like an OT and also hold an OTs worldview. For the sake of argument, if this were to happen, believe me there would be little to no need for trained OT professionals. At another level, to provide education and a focus on occupation we have what has come to be known as "Occupational Science". Hopefully, at a general level this subject would help students and people at large develop some awareness of the concept of occupation as OTs understand it over time. But even there, (while it would be nice) I don't see the imperative for anyone to formally have to refer to activities as occupation. My perspective on this larger issue (insistence that everyone use the term "occupation" or be occupation focused in a formal way) is that it really doesn't matter what name something goes by, if it is in essence what a profession or another specialty chooses to call it. As OTs all we need to do is focus on it, make sure our interventions are occupation-based, and that we do what we can to help our clients do what they wish to do, or want to do. Whether they see it as occupation is less important. However, if we can also help them develop an appreciation of our role, then that is a plus. But one cannot be prescriptive, in fact it goes against the grain of being client-centered. Promoting occupation is one thing, but if one overdoes it, it can become counterproductive. Biraj Ron Carson wrote: > Hello Aaron: > > Thanks for writing back. > > I really don't think that I'm against exercise as a form for health > promotion. I guess I just hate to see OT's fall into the trap of thinking > that exercise is the 'only' or even best way to promote health. > > It seems that our brothers and sister in arms (i.e. PT's) are leading the > way on exercise as the great cure-all for a 'sick' society. I believe that > occupation (which certainly includes exercise) is probably a better approach > to health and I just want to share that opinion with others. > > Lastly, whether exercise is or isn't an occupation is really dependent on > the person doing the exercise. I've seen and probably prescribed, exercise > for many people who couldn't give a darn about what it was doing to them or > for them. For these people, exercise is NOT an occupation. However, like you > say, exercise CAN certainly be an occupation for those people who find > meaning, value and a sense of identity by engaging in it. > > But for everyone who does find such value in exercise, there are many others > who don't. So, what do we do for those people who will benefit from > increased activity but don't find exercise to be an occupation of choice. > Simple, we help them find occupation of choice that involves some form of > physical activity. > > I guess the bottom line is I just believe in promoting occupation. > > Ron > > ~~~~~ > On 6/23/02, aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > ae> Ron, > > ae> You've been going on a bit here, haven't you. > > ae> Exercise is a useful occupation in health promotion. It likely does enhance > ae> physiological functioning. It likely does promote enhanced mood and > ae> self-concept, and such. And I would assert that for many participating in > ae> it, it would be a "personally relevant and meaningful (i.e. occupation)". > > ae> Is exercise in and of itself the nirvana of all occupations? Clearly not, > ae> but by this line of thinking neither are collecting, or painting, or growing > ae> a business, or raising a child. Many occupations chosen and directed by the > ae> individual weave that persons "tapestry of life". One of those chosen > ae> occupations may be exersice. > > ae> I would be interested to know, Ron, why you appear to be so passionate > ae> against "exercise" as an occupational form for health promotion. > > ae> Aaron Eakman > > ae> ----- Original Message ----- > ae> From: "Ron Carson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ae> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ae> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 5:38 AM > ae> Subject: exercise versus occupation > > >> Hey: > >> > >> Everywhere I go, I keep hearing the term, "exercise" as a way to > ae> promote > >> health. I really believe that people are often using the term > ae> "exercise" > >> when of course they really mean occupation. When someone talks about > ae> having > >> an active lifestyle, more time than not, they are talking about having > ae> an > >> occupationally full life. In other words, a life that may include > ae> exercise, > >> but almost always includes many other forms of non-exercise > ae> related > >> activities. > >> > >> Many people exercise and are still mentally and emotionally unhealthy. > ae> Where > >> as, if these people were to engage in occupation that was challenging > ae> and > >> successful, they would develop a greater sense of competence and > ae> self-worth. > >> Putting a client on stationary bicycle and believing that this is > ae> someone > >> going to improve their health is narrow minded. Of course, OT's often > ae> define > >> health differently than other health care professions. > >> > >> >From an OT perspective, health is NOT measured in terms of oxygen > ae> uptake, > >> heart rate, blood pressure, etc. Health is measured by one's ability > ae> to > >> SUCCESSFULLY engage in activity that is personally relevant and > ae> meaningful > >> (i.e. occupation). > >> > >> However, being able to engage in occupation is infinitely more complex > ae> than > >> simply increasing physiological function. Too many times, exercise is > ae> seen > >> as a 'cure all' for our health problems and for some, simple exercise may > ae> be > >> a great answer. But for many others, health problems (defined as loss > ae> of > >> occupational performance competence) will not be alleviated nor reduced > ae> by > >> exercise. > >> > >> Again, occupation is the name of the game. > >> > >> Ron > >> > >> *********��*********** > >> > >> Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist > >> > >> ** List messages are archived at: > >> > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > >> > >> *********��*********** > >> > > ae> *********��*********** > > ae> Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ae> In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist > > ae> ** List messages are archived at: > > ae> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > ae> *********��*********** > > *********��*********** > > Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist > > ** List messages are archived at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > *********��*********** *********��*********** Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist ** List messages are archived at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] *********��***********
