George: I’ll begin using my full name (see below) to help dismiss the
perception that I may be afraid to stand by what I am saying. I think
it is good to be held accountable for our views, and accept
criticism/support openly.
>I think you should begin to accept the fact that I come on in good
faith, making comments which I hope will be helpful in the >long run.
I don’t seriously question your good faith, and I do believe that you
have the best interests of amputees at heart. I am hoping to help us
arrive at a statement of the problem, as well as a vision/mission that
will be both accurate (valid) and positive. I DO believe that the field
of prosthetics has generally served the needs of the amputee, and that
the controlling forces in the profession today are amputee-oriented.
There is also no question in my mind that we have not arrived, and still
have much progess to make.
The fact that your comments are being made to a List Serve that is
composed primarily of PO professionals, and not amputees (if I’m wrong
on this perception someone correct me) makes me assume that your goal is
to influence prosthetists of your view. This will not be accomplished
if you discount the overall good intentions of the group you are
addressing. First, it is bad people skills. Secondly, it is not
accurate (my opinion).
>Let me say that I feel that there is a basic defensiveness of posture
in your responses and in how others handle some of my
>ideas. You concede some points but generally you discount important
improvements which should surely be discussed
>further before you accept or reject them.
My specific questions to you had to do with specifics of the
vision/mission of an amp union. I am always looking to refine my view
of the world and my opinions, but I will continue to view with
skepticism and defensiveness, any general statements of the problem/plan
that involve a significantly different view of the profession than I
have, and that do not provide positive objectives and action steps.
Until I see and hear those specifics, this is little more than griping.
Don’t wait until you think most people agree with your view of the
problem and its solution – state both clearly and then stand by it.
Part of the problem here may be that I agree with your most basic
premise (the need for improvement in PO), and am anxiously waiting
discussion on the specifics of the solution. If you goal is to get help
in formulating the plan, etc, ASK questions and keep your focus on the
positive.
>Often you admit to shortcomings in P&O (eg below) and at the same time
belittle my suggestions for improvement.
I apologize if that has been the overall tone of my comments. I am not
trying to dismiss your suggestions, and am actually trying to help you
formulate answers to the important questions.
>One of the impediments to the perception of prosthetists as full
professionals is their ambiguous status as merchants. Surely
>this can be rearranged…..eg, MDs no longer sell medications.
The way we are re-imbursed for our services and products has to change,
and at this point I don’t think that the profession deserves that
change. Until that happens, there will be a tendency to view us as
more as merchants. And, we will never get away from “making legs” –
whatever terms we use – so it is more a matter of getting a reputation
for doing that, and MORE.
>Independence and shunning of collegial allegiances must remain as
bed-rock for the AUA. This does not mean that the
>amputee group will be adversarial by preference….the goal is a
consolidated professional posture for the organization.
I don’t understand your point here and in the last message: “collegial”
and “adversarial”. These words most likely have a different connotation
to the two of us. Explain how the ACA, for example, loses influence by
being “collegial”.
>Come on, John, I’m sure that you are as amused as I am by your
suggestion that amputees ‘vote with their feet’ 🙂 Totally
>simplistic!!
Don’t miss my point, though, George. The most powerful force for
amputees is involvement in their own care, and the power to make
decisions regarding it – including which prosthetist to work with.
Obviously, hundreds of such people in a group would exert more
influence, but not for each individual amputee. For the individual
amputee things can never get any better than finding a good prosthetist
who will work with you (no on you) and is a skilled and knowledgeable
medical professional and craftsman(woman).
I believe that you have to face the reality that many (most?) amputees
are limited more by their own lack of involvement in their own care than
by lack of access to qualified prosthetists. Lest you think I am
discriminating against the physically challenged, I believe the same
thing about non-amputees and their medical care.
>I think you find the notion of a union of amputees in some ways
threatening.
I find threatening any group of passionate people who lack a valid
vision, clear and informed objectives, and specific action steps toward
their accomplishment. Passion alone, while it gets people on your side
for a short while, is inadquate to deal with the realities of life.
Keep the ideas (specific, positive) coming.
Respectfully:
John T. Brinkmann, CPO
