Florida Board Nominations
Steven L. Fries, L.C.P.O.
Description
Collection
Title:
Florida Board Nominations
Creator:
Steven L. Fries, L.C.P.O.
Text:
Dear Colleagues:
There has been an unusual amount of controversy surrounding the
application and possible nomination of Mr. Hugh Panton to the Florida Board
of Orthotists and Prosthetists. Evidence of this can be found in articles
recently published in the O&P Business News and on the Internet where a
number of comments have been submitted to the O&P website. One of the major
issues fueling this debate is state licensure and the implications of
overrepresentation and possible conflicts of interest should Mr. Panton be
appointed to the board.
Given the tone of some of the statements, it appears that there are some
serious misgivings in the O&P community regarding this particular appointment
which would most likely divide rather than unify our profession in its quest
for recognition and prominence through higher educational standards and
stronger licensure. For whatever reasons, there is some suspicion that
issues relevant to our profession may be compromised because they fail to
benefit the financial and staffing needs of Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics
(of which I was a proud member for many years). Mr. Panton's rather tortuous
explanations of his positions on licensure in the January 15th issue of the O&
P Business News did little to assure me that he would carry our profession's
colors before those of Hanger's teal and white.
For the good of our patients as well as our profession, standards
upholding higher education, clinical training, testing and experience must be
upheld. The bar should not be lowered. I think there is some question that
efforts to relax the requirements necessary to qualify for licensure will
only serve an ulterior motive. The interests and needs of any corporation
should not supercede those of its patients (clients, customers) or the
profession of which it is a part. Besides, how much dumbing-down can we
stand? If the standards for licensure are lowered and the doors thrown open
to unqualified non-professionals by a board member
whose positions on licensure are so diffuse, we will have allowed to happen
to our profession what Firestone allowed to happen to tires.
Mr. Panton is a savvy businessman with years of experience whom I have
had occasion to work with in the past, but I remain unpersuaded that his
appointment to the Florida Board would serve the primary interests of our
patients or our profession.
This is a critical issue which I would encourage all to consider for its
impact upon the level of care provided to our patients, the value of our
licenses and the integrity of our profession. Should you share any of these
concerns, you may wish to contact the Governor of the State of Florida. I
would also encourage those who support his nomination to do the same.
Respectfully,
Steven L. Fries, CPO, (L)
Fort Myers, FL
There has been an unusual amount of controversy surrounding the
application and possible nomination of Mr. Hugh Panton to the Florida Board
of Orthotists and Prosthetists. Evidence of this can be found in articles
recently published in the O&P Business News and on the Internet where a
number of comments have been submitted to the O&P website. One of the major
issues fueling this debate is state licensure and the implications of
overrepresentation and possible conflicts of interest should Mr. Panton be
appointed to the board.
Given the tone of some of the statements, it appears that there are some
serious misgivings in the O&P community regarding this particular appointment
which would most likely divide rather than unify our profession in its quest
for recognition and prominence through higher educational standards and
stronger licensure. For whatever reasons, there is some suspicion that
issues relevant to our profession may be compromised because they fail to
benefit the financial and staffing needs of Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics
(of which I was a proud member for many years). Mr. Panton's rather tortuous
explanations of his positions on licensure in the January 15th issue of the O&
P Business News did little to assure me that he would carry our profession's
colors before those of Hanger's teal and white.
For the good of our patients as well as our profession, standards
upholding higher education, clinical training, testing and experience must be
upheld. The bar should not be lowered. I think there is some question that
efforts to relax the requirements necessary to qualify for licensure will
only serve an ulterior motive. The interests and needs of any corporation
should not supercede those of its patients (clients, customers) or the
profession of which it is a part. Besides, how much dumbing-down can we
stand? If the standards for licensure are lowered and the doors thrown open
to unqualified non-professionals by a board member
whose positions on licensure are so diffuse, we will have allowed to happen
to our profession what Firestone allowed to happen to tires.
Mr. Panton is a savvy businessman with years of experience whom I have
had occasion to work with in the past, but I remain unpersuaded that his
appointment to the Florida Board would serve the primary interests of our
patients or our profession.
This is a critical issue which I would encourage all to consider for its
impact upon the level of care provided to our patients, the value of our
licenses and the integrity of our profession. Should you share any of these
concerns, you may wish to contact the Governor of the State of Florida. I
would also encourage those who support his nomination to do the same.
Respectfully,
Steven L. Fries, CPO, (L)
Fort Myers, FL
Citation
Steven L. Fries, L.C.P.O., “Florida Board Nominations,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 23, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/215665.
