Re: PC Terminology

Re: PC Terminology

ecat

5/12/1999

Richard, A well considered response to the current discussion, however, I
must take small issue with one of your points: under few circumstances is it
best for prosthetic care to be under the direction of a Medical
Practitioner. These people, by and large, unless specialists in this field,
have NO training in the prosthetic care of patients. They can be expected to
have NO knowledge of componentry, alignment or gait patterns/training. They
can generate a prescription for care in general terms , giving a medical
history.
with respect, Richard Ziegeler

<Email Address Redacted>
-----Original Message-----
From: <Email Address Redacted> < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: <Email Address Redacted> < <Email Address Redacted> >
Date: Tuesday, 11 May 1999 10:41
Subject: Re: PC Terminology


>At the risk of being attacked from all sides.. yes, there are distinctions
>that most reasonable persons could agree with. When the amputation of an
>extremity has occurred, historically, that person has been considered an
>amputee i.e., the recipient of amputation surgery. They may refer to
>themselves, or be referred to as an amputee, independent of whether or not
>they have received a prosthesis. That determination results from a medical
>referral of the patient who has been under the care of a physician, to a
>qualified professional such as a prosthetist, to initiate prosthetic
care.
>I hope you are with me so far cause here is where it gets sticky.
>When qualified professionals encounter a new amputee I believe that the
>patient status should extend past the physicians door, and continue
>throughout the initial prosthetic care experience. There are indeed
medical
>considerations that need to be addressed in new wearers that the
>prosthetist must be aware of, and perhaps refer back to the prescribing
>physician. You all might agree that prosthetic care is best delivered
under
>the direction of a Medical Doctor, yes? Well. How might we practitioners
>refer to our clients when discussing the patient with their doctor?
Indeed
>the patient is and continues to be a patient of the referring
physician!
>Or with the insurance company? If third party payors get ahold of this
>dialog and the concept of a consumer buying parts from the socket fitter
>catches on, they may not be so apt to consider amputees as patients either.
>If reimbursement is a problem now...
>I will defer to call anyone any label they prefer. Experienced prosthetic
>and orthotic wearers will resent my implication that they are uncured as
>the term patient is used in a prosthetic/orthotic care context. But
>indeed, they continue as a patient under the care of the referring
physician,
>and practitioners are justified in referring to them as such. When
amputees
>are referred by their physicians as patients to a prosthetist, it is
>continuity of care, not egotistical labelling, that is the motivation for
>using the terminology. Semantics be damned, next time you leave your
>physicians office with a prosthetic prescription, stop by your insurance
>carriers office and let them know that you are a consumer and no longer a
>patient. It won't take them long to figure out that you wish to buy a
>commodity, something similar to toothpaste or fertilizer. These items are
>not included in benefits packages, L-Codes, and they require limited
degrees
>of professionalism, training, and expertise to deliver. That is not the
>brave new world of political correctness that I envision.
> Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. I know I asked for
>it up front,
>but I aimed to clarify, not to tear down. Please don't attack my
sincerity.
>
>
>Richard Miller, CO
>