Hello Ryan: I think you provide a fairly generic but accurate description of OT's role. Being generic is good because it allows for the the description to be generalized to many practice settings and to many types of impairments and disabilities.
Based on your definition then, is it safe to assume that if clients do not want or are not able to do occupations the way they used to, then their is no role for OT? RC ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On 10/25/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rac> Carson, Sorry it has taken so long to respond and I almost forgot Rac> exactly what I wrote. But, I believe the definition I wrote was Rac> something like as follows: Rac> Occupational therapy is enabling meaningful occupation back into Rac> someone's life who for some reason is not participating in Rac> work(productivity), leisure, self care (ADL's), or rest, the way Rac> they used to and desire a healthier balance of these occupations Rac> in their life. Rac> I honeslty don't know if this is the universal definition, but, I Rac> think that this one fits the profession pretty good. The reason I Rac> think so is because this definition allows for a therapist to use Rac> any frame of refference that he/she feels fit to facilitate the Rac> main goal of occupations in the clients life no matter the Rac> clinical setting. Rac> Write back if you want further explanation. Rac> Ryan Rac> *********��*********** Rac> Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rac> In the message's *body*, put the following text: Rac> unsubscribe OTlist Rac> List messages are archived at: Rac> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Rac> *********��*********** *********��*********** Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist List messages are archived at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] *********��***********
