In the medical model, the
emphasis is on finding the problem and correcting the problem. You
know, very mechanical, like a clock with a broken spring. If you fix
the spring, then the clock will work. Of course, humans aren't
machines, because of will, motivation, emotions, etc and as such they
don't function and often can't be fixed like machines.
and this is where your idea of what OT is and mine diverge. I absolutely agree that humans aren't machines, for the reasons you state above, but I feel that OTs are uniquely qualified to address the problems that exist, as identified in the medical model, while recognizing that they are not simply biomechanical in nature, but also social, emotional, environmental, etc., etc. I agree wholeheartedly with the person who posted recently about looking at the patient from both a macro AND a micro point of view. You have stated repeatedly through your posts, that you vigourously oppose any micro approach, and I feel that I have gotten excellent results from working with my patients using both the micro and the macro approach. I feel that if I take only a macro approach, I am not providing my patients with as thorough a program as I would otherwise be able to provide, and I don't think that there is anyone else on the treatment team who would pick up the slac! k that I would have dropped by not addressing these micro issues.
You go on to state that "It's the old proverbial round peg in a square hole. If
the two are to fit, something must give." It seems that you think that it is the medical model that must give, and that is not something that is going to happen, since all the rest of the team is able to work very comfortably within that model. Some of us OTs can too, while maintaining our focus not on UE ex., but occupational issues.
Ann
