PT Whore of the Month Club #3

The PT "Whore of the Month" Club continues to be received with great fanfare, despite some strong objections to the label we have put on what has turned out to be a very popular feature. In light of our very transparent disclaimer below regarding which definition of "Whore" we are intending, we have elected to stay with the current title. Feel free to continue hammering us in your comments if you disagree, but plain language works well here and frankly the definition could not be more apropos.

We were delinquent in publishing a March winner so will be catching up in the coming weeks. The belated March 2008 winner of the PT Whore of the Month Club is...drumroll please...

Alan Tyson, PT, SCS, ATC-L, CSCS

Mr. Tyson teaches a course through CIAO seminars titled "A Business Model to a Better Private Practice." CIAO's course description boasts that the course will teach us how to increase the number of referrals to our clinic and ways to compete against physician-owned practices. Mr. Tyson's philosophy is that practice representatives should position themselves as experts on a subject by providing several pieces of new educational information that are valuable and practical to either a potential client or referring physician. Because the therapist has positioned him/herself as an expert in the eyes of the intended audience, the potential client or physician will seek out that therapist when PT treatment is needed at a later time.

This philosophy is fine and appropriate to teach during the course; however, Mr. Tyson apparently spends much of the time positioning himself as an expert on dietary supplements with the hope that participants will stay after the course and listen to his business model about how you can peddle his products in your clinic.

And what do you learn about competing against physician-owned practices? Nada. There is actually no mentioning of it during his entire presentation. Although it is difficult to tell, it appears he may actually be employed in a physician-owned practice himself. Even if he somehow runs an independent PT practice on their behalf, peddling supplements alone is sufficient to make him worthy of the award.

So, save your $275 or spend it on your loved ones lest you be scammed out of a previous Saturday of weekend leisure.

Keep sending in your ideas via email at info@evidenceinmotion.com or feel free to post as comments!

The EIM Team

 

Previous PT Whore of the Month Winners:

Jan 2008 - WebPT - PT Whore of the Month Club #1

Feb 2008 - Paul Duxbury - PT Whore of the Month Club #2

Disclaimer:

In the event that anyone is concerned with our use of the word "Whore", we are referring to definition #4 below.

whore-

1. a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.

2. to act as a whore.

3. to consort with whores.

–verb (used with object)

4. Obsolete. to make a whore of; corrupt; debauch.

Comments

[Brian Boyle]

I find this rather interesting as well. I am a private practice owner and have a couple of offices in the Charlotte area.

It is as it appears, Alan does work for OrthoCarolina. The group is made up of about 70 Orthopedic Surgeons who own many clinics in and around Charlotte. Of course they all have PT in house and all are owned by OrthoCarolina. Healthsouth previously held the contract until OrthoCarolina realized that they could profit off bringing therapy in house and they never renewed the contract.

The Epicenter, where Alan works, is their flagship office for Sports Medicine. I would love to see what he had to say about competing with the physician owned groups. Oh wait maybe there is a good reason he does not mention anything about this in his presentation. He wouldn't know. Keep up the great work on calling out those that do whore themselves and the profession.

[Colleen Gest]

As I read your blog, I see that apparently others have commented on the lack of sensitivity when using the word "whore," in your whore of the month postings. I understand that you are trying to convey the more corrupt aspects of the profession. However, I feel that no matter the intention when using such diction, it has always and will always convey negative connotations regarding the role of women and their sexuality. It seems to me that the purpose of using this title is simply inflammatory (your intention, I know), however, it still perpetuates negative societal stereotypes as it CANNOT be separated from the original meaning of the word "whore." Even in the definition you selected, the meaning cannot be separated by the original syntax. I believe we are further adding to any corruption that might exist in our profession as Physical Therapists by lowering our standards and neglecting our duty to attend to the psychosocal aspects of our patients as well as their physical impairments.

[Diane]

Colleen, I agree. I see the highlighted meaning selected by the author is the only "obsolete" one on that little list of definitions.

The word "pimp" (i.e., exploiTER) might have been a better choice of term to express the originally intended meaning, i.e., "to make a whore *OF*; corrupt; debauch."

Who is the exploiter and who is the exploitee?

In any case this word is terminally, flagrantly, irredeemably sexist. Therefore use of it here as free-wheeling metaphor is quite misplaced in that the profession contains a preponderance of women.

[Sean]

Thank God the PC Police have no control of us at this site.

[cjk]

I agree Colleen & Diane. Yes, shock value draws attention, but in this case it detracts from the point and makes me question judgment. Is part of the point to insult those offended by the word itself? or to avoid compromising? It seems silly to not expect some readers to be distracted from the point about unscrupulous practitioners. As an educated individual with legitimate concern for the profession it doesn’t take the word ‘whore’ in the title to encourage me to read...

[Selena Horner]

Whore is also slang. Back in the day, whore was definitely focused on women and sexual promiscuity. That isn't always the case in this day in age. (Maybe I'm around teenagers more often than some of you, but whore isn't always used as some of you perceive it.)

Whore used as slang:

1. A person who wastes abilities by working for unworthy, disgraceful causes.

2. A term used to describe someone who commits to an activity so much that it begins to irritate others.

3. An individual who compromises his or her principles for personal gain.

4. A person who sells his or her higher honor for personal gain. The term often refers to sexual honor, but may not necessarily be exclusive to it.

5. To post a bulletin on MySpace that tells all of your friends to add a certain person.

6. And then... teenage girls call each other this term.

Some of you may not like the term, but numbers 1-4 are pretty accurate descriptions of choices those therapists have made.

[cjk]

Selena,
The Urban Dictionary disagrees (I think this is higher on the evidence scale).

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whore

Authors are going for definition #17

[John Ware]

I'm unabashedly male, and cannot count myself a member of any minority group, so I have no problem with the terminology.

At least until a woman is cited as the next "whore of the month", then things could get a little dicey. So dicey, in fact, that on a subconscious level, there may be reluctance to apply the term to a female who meets the criteria.

Thus far, only male PTs have been tagged with the Scarlet "W".

Maybe it's time to take a poll on this one.

[Carina Lowry]

John W,

86 definitions and over 50% of them have an implicit description of a working woman. Regardless of the disclaimers there is a definite "sleeping with the enemy" implied with each of these awards. So I would have to say that although I am very offended by the name of the award, I guess it's better than the synonyms they could be using--all of which continue to degrade women moreso than men. This just continues to underscore gender inequality in the profession and in our society in general.

I personally liked definition number #10: A woman with the morals of a man.

Carina

[John Ware]

Carina,
My problem with the term is that, so far, it's only been used to describe the behavior of males who have sold out our profession. So, are we seeing here a possible case of reverse discrimination?

No matter how many definitions people come up with to justify its use,
I think the chances of any woman being labelled "whore of the month" is slim to none. Regardless of how egregious the betrayal of the profession, the word is way too gender-loaded against women to be used against a female in the context of unprofessional behavior.

So, in effect, only men will be dubbed with this dubious distinction. Is that fair?

A less gender-biased descriptor is probably the way to go.

In the case of these first three jokers, though, I'm going to miss this particular word.

[Jon Newman]

I happen to read both of the following posts just this month and thought that since "whore" is becoming a matter of consequence I'd post the links for your consideration.

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/26/nussbaum-on-sex-work/

and

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6472

I know that "Business arrangements we don't prefer" doesn't have the same pizazz as "whore" but it would be a consistent claim that transcends all changes related to its relevant environment.

I won't hold my breath.

[Jason Silvernail]

I like the name of the award. I think it's about time we started dropping the PC stuff and call things as they are in our profession. I'm a lot more offended by being referred to as an "ancillary service" or an "allied health" provider than I am with the use of this word for an award.

You don't have to be a woman to be a whore, you just have to be a whore.

[Carina Lowry]

Jas- I agree that I am offended by the "ancillary" term too...

JW- Yes, it seems a bit like reverse gender discrimination...

I think that "poseur" or "poser", would be a better descriptor for a sell out though.

Carina

[Jon Newman]

Hi Jason,

Since the idea of this thread is to punish vile PTs we ought to use the even more offensive terms you cite. How about "ancillary service provider of the month"?

I suppose not. That would be beyond the pale.

[Jason Silvernail]

Hi Jon,
I'm not sure 'ancillary service provider of the month' has the same visceral impact.
That's why I'm glad they chose 'whore'.

The fact that we talk about the use of the word every month tells me that it has the desired effect.

[Jon Newman]

Hey Jason,

I agree that visceral impact (versus rational appeal) was the intended effect. However, it's a bit awkward to simultaneously distance oneself from the source of emotion that one is depending upon. It reminds me of a politician that denounces a negative campaign ad...that can be seen on Tue...at 6 pm...on channel 7..."I denounce it I tell you", he says. (I hope I get some points for not using the politically correct "(s)he" in that last sentence.)

It's also a good thing PTs don't ever treat "whores" so we don't have to explain away our dependence on society's moral condemnation of that group of people for making political points.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I would expect that a more careful use of language can be appreciated by an evidenced based (and presumably rational) website concerned about the branding of the profession.

I took a look at the definition of the words in the fourth definition of "whore" and "debauch" was quite relevant. A creative person might be able to do something with that.

I don't think there is any moral imperative to change the title but it might be wise.

[John Ware]

"However, it's a bit awkward to simultaneously distance oneself from the source of emotion that one is depending upon."

Awkward, unwise, inconsistent and unfair.

We've gotten our jollies with this word, but now let's exit the locker room and find something that befits the standards of this site.

[Britt Smith]

I'd suggest 'newest member of the oldest profession' Britt