CafeDoor

Avoiding kinds, (aware of so many possibilities) clinicians have fallen prey to name calling. Like, sleaze bags on the corner rating girls as 0 to 10, the docs rate kids with 'cerebral palsy' as 1 to 5. 1 = Why are you complaining?. You ain't so bad. Go play. 5 = Whoa, what a mess. Not much we can do to make a desired difference. These grades from 1 to 5 tell us NOTHING about the neural structure nor potential work around possibilities. There's not very much we do for types 1 & 5. So, we are left treating the most challenging CP kids brought in with problems to solve. We have allotted them types 2, 3, & 4. If you find this wanting and prone to erroneous treatment planning then .. good for you!!! Rehabilitation Engineering does not care much for this arm's length 'Naming of Parts' [Henry Reed 1942] in the face of future needs, hopes & desires. In a quest for work-arounds, we begin with INVENTORY. What is working? What is trying to work but is being thwarted? What is in the way of what is trying? Is the funny looking thing the kid is doing a projection of the damaged brain's intent? Or, is it what the struggling child fopund that gets around it what is blocking intent? We do NOT want to point at compensatory things, give them Latin & Greek names and 'cure them'. We do not want to chisel bone in the name of “lever arms” run amok [how-so??]. To communicate we need basic common language. So let's start from basics and keep the language well grounded in observation.

Common descriptions of anatomy will help.