Podiatry Arena members do not see these ads

Not wishing to reopen the debate on Rothbart’s Insoles, but there continues to be some disparaging comments in related threads, which I feel just a little uncomfortable with. Like many, I find some of Brian’s claims somewhat spurious and his explanations less than adequate, but I approached the subject with an open mind, especially given that there has been some positive feedback from patients and practitioners alike. If we are to ridicule colleagues because they cannot adequately explain how orthoses work or if they may make claims some may say are bogus, then we should at least be consistent. How many practitioners fully understand what changes their orthoses will actually make to the foot and lower-limb? How many practitioners make specious claims? If the clinical outcomes between bespoke and off-the-shelf orthoses are so similar in randomised clinical trials, how can we truly justify the additional cost to the patient for custom devices? Shouldn’t this be the primary focus for our professional concerns rather than a minor commercial exploitative claim?

Also, it is really impressive and much appreciated the extend to which Arena covers all issues pertaining to the foot and the podiatry profession, but just occasionally I get an uncomfortable twinge when the subject matter relates to a transgression or misdemeanour committed by one of our colleagues. I guess the ongoing case of Ali Foster has special resonance for many in the UK (at least), and I feel that reporting of such material on this forum may be a little voyeuristic and unhelpful for the person concerned. Life has a funny habit of procuring untoward surprises at times and any one of us could find ourselves in a difficult, if not intolerable position, often through no fault of our own. Knowing that the global profession are onlookers to your predicament must be extremely difficult to bear. I wouldn’t ever want to be accused of promoting censorship or expurgating painful facts, but I’m not all that sure that a primarily professional, but public resource, is the best medium in which to report these matters.

As Syd would remark, what say you?

Mark Russell

__________________
"citing an indisposition due to special circumstances"

My location

Mark, you are right about the disparging comments and I did consider edits or removal, but if you are talking about comments in this thread:
Do Rearfoot posts Work?, then I thought that comments were close to the line, but Brian brought them on himself with this post: Why not post the information? Why skirt around the issue? Why not present the information/arguments on how not needed rearfoot posts is understood by understanding normal embryological development rather than be cryptic? Why not put it out there for discussion and defend it?

Outrageous claims (no matter who makes them), tend to get treated like this on almost all forums (not just podiatry ones).

__________________
Forum Rules |FAQ's | Earn CPD Points
Have you added your location to the map? (Map FAQ's)

Yes I know and I agree that it was disappointing that most of Brian's replies were directional links to the website which gave little or no satisfaction to correspondents - myself included. For me though it was also disappointing that there was so much frenzied personal invective which tended to deflect from some really interesting arguments regarding the effectiveness of orthotic practice. Perhaps I'm just being pedantic, but I'm left with a fair number of unanswered questions, but hey, what's new these days?

__________________
"citing an indisposition due to special circumstances"

My location

Of course, foot orthotics and foot function debate can be sometimes agressive (like the adolescents comparison from Felicity) because (we like or not) there are multiple theories and treatments for explaining foot function and conditions and it can drive to faced opinions. But, there are theories that fall on the speculation without data for supporting them and theories that, at least, try to offer a consistent background (or a background that can be discussed). We need to leave nonsense to move to science if we want to see podiatry progress. Patients reports and colleagues practioners are not enough to support a theory, although it is the way things have been going on during years. If someone join a debate trying to introduce another theory (I have no problem with that), this person should offer some accurate data, not only, diffuse claims.

On PodiatryManagement News appears regularly news about podiatrists facing different offenses. Sometimes, It is like to make suffer someone to public mocking. But, these news have been published on the media thus it falls on the public domain. One can be protagonist on the news from own acts (good or bad). Is it fair or unfair? It depends on your view and the news theme, but it is acceptable in our socities. Thus, I see no reason to not republish this kind of news.

Mark,

I only use directional links only after careful consideration, namely, when I believe the question can be answered better going to the website (in most cases with animated models) than I can do on the forum without animations or illustrations.

Directing readers to my website is NOT an adversion technique. In fact, it is just the opposite. I have put it all out there for everyone to read.

As I said, there is so much to discuss. For instance, let's talk about a definition of abnormal pronation, or, better yet, what is normal pronation?

Brian