Re: Summary of Responses
Bill Lifford
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Summary of Responses
Creator:
Bill Lifford
Date:
1/17/2000
Text:
Hello all,
The main reason I didn't include names in my summary of responses
to the Gel Liners vs. TEC Interface post was for one simple
reason: A number of practitioners referred to amputees as their
patients.
The last time I responded to a post and referred to someone as my
patient I received quite a few scoldings via e-mail (6, in
fact). I did not want to open up any practitioners to criticism
based on their terminology. I now use the extremely lame but
politically correct client/patient so that no one from either
side of the argument really gets too upset.
So, there you have it. Names were omitted because, as I stated
in my original post, the summary was going to be cross-posted to
AMP-L and as such I was trying to respect the posters' right to
privacy.
Sorry for the confusion. If enough people ask I will re-post the
summary of responses with names added to their posts, but I think
all answers should be given some consideration regardless of who
posted them. Mr. Haines just posted a response to this thread
including:
If answers must be predicated upon
authoritative reply, isn't that being a little narrow minded
about the real
issue of problem solving? Frankly, on occasion I have seen some
pretty
clever answers come from suspecting sources.
I think his point is extremely valid. Point well taken.
Bill Lifford, CP
The main reason I didn't include names in my summary of responses
to the Gel Liners vs. TEC Interface post was for one simple
reason: A number of practitioners referred to amputees as their
patients.
The last time I responded to a post and referred to someone as my
patient I received quite a few scoldings via e-mail (6, in
fact). I did not want to open up any practitioners to criticism
based on their terminology. I now use the extremely lame but
politically correct client/patient so that no one from either
side of the argument really gets too upset.
So, there you have it. Names were omitted because, as I stated
in my original post, the summary was going to be cross-posted to
AMP-L and as such I was trying to respect the posters' right to
privacy.
Sorry for the confusion. If enough people ask I will re-post the
summary of responses with names added to their posts, but I think
all answers should be given some consideration regardless of who
posted them. Mr. Haines just posted a response to this thread
including:
If answers must be predicated upon
authoritative reply, isn't that being a little narrow minded
about the real
issue of problem solving? Frankly, on occasion I have seen some
pretty
clever answers come from suspecting sources.
I think his point is extremely valid. Point well taken.
Bill Lifford, CP
Citation
Bill Lifford, “Re: Summary of Responses,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 24, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/213552.
