Re: Qualifications

Re: Qualifications

Gingras, Ron

12/15/2005

Hi Jim

I was ok with your comments except the part regarding You're
understanding and willful acceptance of why ABC did what they did for
unification sake. Imagine another profession , lets say physicians
wanted to increase their base by including nurses with just the level
of education of a nurse and $75 just for the sake of unification and
increasing physicians numbers. Or maybe PT's accepting high school
graduates with one week of unqualified education as equal to someone
with their qualifications? What kind of danger would that put patients
in? What was ABC thinking I wonder? What possible reason could a
legitement profession have , especially a medical profession have in
lowering its standards to award a credential that once signified
competency. What other medical profession would ever do such a thing for
the sake of membership. The answer is no legitement medical professional
credentialing agency.
What ABC did was nothing short of loosing all credibility. What is
really shameful is that all those people out there needing comprehensive
O and P care in unlicensed states are now deceived into believing that
Certified Orthotist and Certified Prosthetist is an educationally based
credential and that they will receive competent comprehensive O and P
care from these folks based on that assumption.
This was a Total betrayal of persons with disabilities needing this care
and misleading persons with disabilities as to the educational
requirements of someone holding that credential.
The only good thing that came from the$75 decision is that it fueled a
huge licensure push and I pray that in the end, other states like
Florida will eliminate CPO certificate from licensure terminology
credentialing totally.
What is truly beautiful is that now we in Florida have protected the
public from those types of poor policy decisions by ABC and have $75
CPO's in the state that can only fit soft goods. Not because we are
vindictive (or not sensitive) but because that is all they are formally
trained to provide . And until they successfully complete legitement,
university/ college recognized meaningful educational requirements to
provide comprehensive O and P care here in Florida ,licensure standards
will continue to protect the public.

As someone else once said, wake up and smell the roses ,this isn't
Kansas Dorothy.

Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Orthotics and Prosthetics List [mailto:<Email Address Redacted>] On
Behalf Of James Mc Coy, C.P., L.P., FAAOP
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:08 AM
To: <Email Address Redacted>
Subject: Re: [OANDP-L] Qualifications

Mr. De Wees,
 
Your e-mail was very well stated. I commend you for your honesty and
courage to state the reality of the present situation. I share many of
your concerns and have experienced similar situations regarding the
specific cases you detailed. I understand your bitterness with ABC, but
I also understand their actions and attempts at unification of O & P
credentialing. We (the O & P profession; not industry) need to get our
own house in order. This situation will continue until we achieve
unification and credentialing based upon valid (ethical, educational,
experiential, legal, etc.) standards. At present, I believe the most
effective way is through state licensure and accreditation.
Although, I do not always agree with Tony Barr, I believe his
statements about this matter are correct. As Pogo once said: We have
met the enemy, and it is us.
 
James Mc Coy, C.P., L.P., FAAOP
Professional Prosthetics
San Antonio, TX