One thing I have noticed about the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy during my 18 years of membership is that they are politically active, and try to act in the best interests of the general public; not just the interests of physiotherapists. I do not feel that the British Association of Occupational Therapists has given me such a good impression. That is a shame.
I recently submitted an editorial to BJOT saying that the Paralympics being separate from the Olympics is an example of social exclusion and it would be more inclusive if they were combined. I also suggested that public and athletes' views on this were something that the occupational therapy profession is well placed to research.
They sent me a rejection e-mail on Friday saying:
"I am not convinced that the best audience for your message are occupational therapists. They are not in a position to change the way the Olympic movement plans its events and it certainly not before 2016. Nor, have you provided an argument for why occupational therapists would be the best people to conduct the research you suggest. If you are urging inclusion, then it should be disabled people themselves who undertake the research and advocate for the change in the games."
I sent them an e-mail back saying:
"I feel disturbed by the reviewer's lack of vision regarding the role of the occupational therapy profession in society. To suggest that it is the responsibility of 'disabled people' rather than the society that is disabling them to research potential avenues for social inclusion, seems to me as ludicrous as to suggest that it is the responsibility of victims of racism to research racism!"
I am glad I am not wasting my money on BAOT membership anymore and feel that my efforts to promote the occupational therapy profession over the last 10 years have been about as useful as sticking a spoiler on the back of a Toyota Aygo; there is no point bigging something up if it consistently fails to rise to the occasion.
In future when hear people mocking occupational therapy, I might just shrug my shoulders and think "if the shoe fits..."
V
I recently submitted an editorial to BJOT saying that the Paralympics being separate from the Olympics is an example of social exclusion and it would be more inclusive if they were combined. I also suggested that public and athletes' views on this were something that the occupational therapy profession is well placed to research.
They sent me a rejection e-mail on Friday saying:"I am not convinced that the best audience for your message are occupational therapists. They are not in a position to change the way the Olympic movement plans its events and it certainly not before 2016. Nor, have you provided an argument for why occupational therapists would be the best people to conduct the research you suggest. If you are urging inclusion, then it should be disabled people themselves who undertake the research and advocate for the change in the games."
I sent them an e-mail back saying:
"I feel disturbed by the reviewer's lack of vision regarding the role of the occupational therapy profession in society. To suggest that it is the responsibility of 'disabled people' rather than the society that is disabling them to research potential avenues for social inclusion, seems to me as ludicrous as to suggest that it is the responsibility of victims of racism to research racism!"
I am glad I am not wasting my money on BAOT membership anymore and feel that my efforts to promote the occupational therapy profession over the last 10 years have been about as useful as sticking a spoiler on the back of a Toyota Aygo; there is no point bigging something up if it consistently fails to rise to the occasion.
In future when hear people mocking occupational therapy, I might just shrug my shoulders and think "if the shoe fits..."
V
