Re: PC Terminology
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: PC Terminology
Text:
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
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
Citation
“Re: PC Terminology,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 26, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/211826.
