Re: Summary of Responses

Bill Lifford

Description

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

                          

Citation

Bill Lifford, “Re: Summary of Responses,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 2, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/213552.