Fwd: Opinions
MANUFACTURING,DYCOR #
Description
Collection
Title:
Fwd: Opinions
Creator:
MANUFACTURING,DYCOR #
Date:
2/5/2021
Text:
Good morning Manisha and Joan,
I know you are both very busy. If and when you can find it convenient, can of you provide an academic perspective - perhaps within the context of Judith Otto's K2 Ambulator... article recently published in 0andP Edge - regarding the email recently sent to OandP-L. Of particular interest is the last paragraph beginning with Now is an unusually dynamic.... I would like to know your thoughts because I sense deficiency and discrepancy in how the extracorporeal OPR (O&P) profession is perceived by our clientele and associated healthcare professionals. With enough interest and effort these questions can best be addressed by the OPR profession. I think we have to back away little bit from the idea that we are attaching a machine (OPR device) to a person and gravitate more towards the idea that we are attaching a person to a machine - at least to the extent that these two ideas balance out and compliment one another. If you were attached to a machine - sometimes permanently - what would you want the machine to be and do? I think people would best understand our professional intentions if we said we are trying to make the machine as much a biological extension of the person as possible, and that starts with neurobiological and biomechanical affinity and interaction. It just so happens that this intention is often clinically realized through any number of neuromechanical and biomechanical intervention strategies designed to successfully augment threatened or compromised essential biological function. Efficacious implementation and availability of biological restoration for OPR clientele can be an inexpensive or expensive proportion defending on - among other things - how, when and by whom these questions are answered.
Please express yourself in confidence if you prefer,
Michael Wilson LP/CPO
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: MANUFACTURING,DYCOR # < <Email Address Redacted> >
> To: <Email Address Redacted> < <Email Address Redacted> >
> Date: 01/14/2021 12:35 PM
> Subject: Opinions
>
>
> Good morning OandP list server,
>
> Below are my thoughts relating to the three responses received from my original posting. Has the below summarization of these responses been censured by OandP list serve? If so, I would like OandP List serve to reconsider censorship as another opinion and try to express this opinion relating to this particular circumstance in the most accurate and favorable light possible because most opinions relating to the matter of clinical perception no doubt have substance. How the OPR clinical profession is perceived by other allied professional groups is indeed a controversial issue, and this controversy should first be addressed within the OPR community.
>
> Changes from summarization post: correction of Joe's last name spelling, addition of the words passively, resulting from illness or injury and interactive threshold of and removal of free.
>
> I look forward to your thoughts,
>
> Michael Wilson LP/CPO
>
>
>
> Good afternoon OPR practitioners,
>
> I received three responses to my inquiry. To summarize, AOPA might be a good place to direct PDAC policy questions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AOPA and especially Joe MacTernan's on-going assistance in all things OPR. The second responder suggests individual companies are heavily favored by these new rules. The third responder suggests there is no clinical or engineering basis for PDAC's exclusionary policy and sighted PDAC's perception of clinical OPR (O&P) has a primary contributor and cause of their mechatronic knee, mechanical shin/ankle/foot and more recently ankle/foot control system engineering clinical necessity exclusivity rules.
>
> Now is an unusually dynamic time for extracorporeal OPR clinical engineering and science. OPR is currently standing at the interactive threshold of mechanical neurobiology and biomechanical clinical science and engineering. Professional appearance and perception as viewed from any number of professional and personal perspectives are and will continue to be critically important From your perspective, are mechatronic and mechanical control systems autonomous or semiautonomous? How intimately connected and interactive are - or might be - mechanical and biological control systems? Is control passive or active? Are the systems designed to actively augment deficient or compromised neuropsychological and neuromuscular function resulting from illness or injury or are they designed to allow the user or operator of the extracorporeal OPR device to passively go along for the ride? Are PDAC policies essentially underwriting industrial interests or are they facilitating clinical care of individuals requiring extracorporeal orthotics, prosthetics and robotics products and services.
>
> If anyone would like to add to this, please let me know if I may post our response; of course anonymously if preferred.
>
> Michael Wilson LP/CPO
>
>
>
>
>
> > > ---------- Original Message ----------
> > From: MANUFACTURING,DYCOR # mailto:<Email Address Redacted> To: <Email Address Redacted> mailto:<Email Address Redacted>
> > Date: 01/08/2021 12:57 PM
> > Subject: Extracorporeal orthotics, prosthetics and robotics
> >
> >
> > Good afternoon fellow OPR practitioners,
> >
> > I hope everyone had a safe and special family holiday.
> >
> > I am a LP/CPO private industry and clinical practice. It is my understanding that without PDAC approval greater clinical restrictions will soon be placed on various foot/ankle components and component systems.
> >
> > I would like to obtain a consensus of opinion regarding the apparent engineering and clinical criteria used by PDAC for the assessment and implementation of such a selective and exclusionary terminational policy.
> >
> > Thank you and I wish this year your best year yet,
> >
> > Michael Wilson LP/CPO member AAOP
> >
> > >
I know you are both very busy. If and when you can find it convenient, can of you provide an academic perspective - perhaps within the context of Judith Otto's K2 Ambulator... article recently published in 0andP Edge - regarding the email recently sent to OandP-L. Of particular interest is the last paragraph beginning with Now is an unusually dynamic.... I would like to know your thoughts because I sense deficiency and discrepancy in how the extracorporeal OPR (O&P) profession is perceived by our clientele and associated healthcare professionals. With enough interest and effort these questions can best be addressed by the OPR profession. I think we have to back away little bit from the idea that we are attaching a machine (OPR device) to a person and gravitate more towards the idea that we are attaching a person to a machine - at least to the extent that these two ideas balance out and compliment one another. If you were attached to a machine - sometimes permanently - what would you want the machine to be and do? I think people would best understand our professional intentions if we said we are trying to make the machine as much a biological extension of the person as possible, and that starts with neurobiological and biomechanical affinity and interaction. It just so happens that this intention is often clinically realized through any number of neuromechanical and biomechanical intervention strategies designed to successfully augment threatened or compromised essential biological function. Efficacious implementation and availability of biological restoration for OPR clientele can be an inexpensive or expensive proportion defending on - among other things - how, when and by whom these questions are answered.
Please express yourself in confidence if you prefer,
Michael Wilson LP/CPO
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: MANUFACTURING,DYCOR # < <Email Address Redacted> >
> To: <Email Address Redacted> < <Email Address Redacted> >
> Date: 01/14/2021 12:35 PM
> Subject: Opinions
>
>
> Good morning OandP list server,
>
> Below are my thoughts relating to the three responses received from my original posting. Has the below summarization of these responses been censured by OandP list serve? If so, I would like OandP List serve to reconsider censorship as another opinion and try to express this opinion relating to this particular circumstance in the most accurate and favorable light possible because most opinions relating to the matter of clinical perception no doubt have substance. How the OPR clinical profession is perceived by other allied professional groups is indeed a controversial issue, and this controversy should first be addressed within the OPR community.
>
> Changes from summarization post: correction of Joe's last name spelling, addition of the words passively, resulting from illness or injury and interactive threshold of and removal of free.
>
> I look forward to your thoughts,
>
> Michael Wilson LP/CPO
>
>
>
> Good afternoon OPR practitioners,
>
> I received three responses to my inquiry. To summarize, AOPA might be a good place to direct PDAC policy questions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AOPA and especially Joe MacTernan's on-going assistance in all things OPR. The second responder suggests individual companies are heavily favored by these new rules. The third responder suggests there is no clinical or engineering basis for PDAC's exclusionary policy and sighted PDAC's perception of clinical OPR (O&P) has a primary contributor and cause of their mechatronic knee, mechanical shin/ankle/foot and more recently ankle/foot control system engineering clinical necessity exclusivity rules.
>
> Now is an unusually dynamic time for extracorporeal OPR clinical engineering and science. OPR is currently standing at the interactive threshold of mechanical neurobiology and biomechanical clinical science and engineering. Professional appearance and perception as viewed from any number of professional and personal perspectives are and will continue to be critically important From your perspective, are mechatronic and mechanical control systems autonomous or semiautonomous? How intimately connected and interactive are - or might be - mechanical and biological control systems? Is control passive or active? Are the systems designed to actively augment deficient or compromised neuropsychological and neuromuscular function resulting from illness or injury or are they designed to allow the user or operator of the extracorporeal OPR device to passively go along for the ride? Are PDAC policies essentially underwriting industrial interests or are they facilitating clinical care of individuals requiring extracorporeal orthotics, prosthetics and robotics products and services.
>
> If anyone would like to add to this, please let me know if I may post our response; of course anonymously if preferred.
>
> Michael Wilson LP/CPO
>
>
>
>
>
> > > ---------- Original Message ----------
> > From: MANUFACTURING,DYCOR # mailto:<Email Address Redacted> To: <Email Address Redacted> mailto:<Email Address Redacted>
> > Date: 01/08/2021 12:57 PM
> > Subject: Extracorporeal orthotics, prosthetics and robotics
> >
> >
> > Good afternoon fellow OPR practitioners,
> >
> > I hope everyone had a safe and special family holiday.
> >
> > I am a LP/CPO private industry and clinical practice. It is my understanding that without PDAC approval greater clinical restrictions will soon be placed on various foot/ankle components and component systems.
> >
> > I would like to obtain a consensus of opinion regarding the apparent engineering and clinical criteria used by PDAC for the assessment and implementation of such a selective and exclusionary terminational policy.
> >
> > Thank you and I wish this year your best year yet,
> >
> > Michael Wilson LP/CPO member AAOP
> >
> > >
Citation
MANUFACTURING,DYCOR #, “Fwd: Opinions,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed December 24, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/255291.
