Four excellent speakers battled it out today (20 June) during the Conference’s debate session. The presenters were poised in their positions on the proposition:
- This house believes that diverse roles are a vital tool in the future of our profession.
The session, chaired by David Brindle, public services editor for The Guardian, was full with zealous delegates, some of whom queued for more than 30 minutes before the doors opened to guarantee their seats.
Speaking for the motion were Miranda Thew, senior lecturer, Leeds Beckett University, and Dr Yvonne Thomas, principal lecturer and academic lead for Allied Health Professions, University of Worcester.
Speaking against the motion were Kee Hean Lim, International and ENOTHE lead for occupational therapy, Brunel University, and Gabrielle Richards, professional head of occupational therapy and Trust social inclusion and recovery lead, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.
Miranda started off with a passionate vision of an unrestrained profession returning to real occupational therapy that addresses the needs that are currently not being met among groups of gypsies and travellers. This was a very powerful contribution.
Dr Thomas backed Miranda up by highlighting the ‘scary picture’ where occupational therapy does not feature in the NHS Five Year Forward View and in other policy documents. Dr Thomas emphasised that voluntary organisations will be leading employers of occupational therapists in the future so there is a need to prepare for this.
From his standpoint, Kee highlighted there is a 30% cut in student applications at Brunel University and stated where he thinks that would lead to. He argued that the profession is in danger and needs to reinstate its purpose. He is in favour of role emerging placements where they lead to clear new roles that recognise occupational therapy and not generic therapy or run the risk of diluting the profession. He said: ‘There is a peril and the peril is if you do everything for everyone at every time you will lose what you are and what you can contribute’.
Gabrielle seconded Kee and spoke very strongly and emphasised this is the time to push back and to reinstate the core vision, mission and role of occupational therapy. ‘Be proud and keep the heart of the profession of occupational therapy alive and ticking’, she said.
On the one hand, the argument was that occupational therapists need to focus on their basic skills and stick to clear occupational therapy areas and not get absorbed into being generic.
On the other side, some people argue that occupational therapists should work in jobs that are clearly identified and badged as such, because not to do so runs the risk of diluting their professional standing as occupational therapy’s unique role isn’t highlighted.
When the floor opened to the delegates, many shared their experiences in diverse settings and advocated the importance of having occupational therapy at the heart of everything they do.
Before the debate began, there were nine delegates against the motion. By the end of the debate there were 23 in favour of said position. This sway showed the strong argument that Kee and Gabrielle had put forward.