Juan has in a way hit the nail on the head when he says “We need to
prepare students to be more than just tinkerers/dabblers that are
taking care of patients. We should prepare students to be more than a
hired technician that is working behind the scenes.” That is exactly
my point in this discussion.
In the topic on ‘Training’ begun on the 9th April, I stressed that if
Anaplastology and Anaplastologists are to be taken seriously, then our
credentials must either run parallel to or go beyond that of other
medical professionals. Let us realize that the field we are in, is in
its own way futuristic. Just as tissue engineering or 3D printing are
futuristic. We are indeed part of the ‘fourth wave’ of technologies
that are riding on the crest of the current technologies. If the
current printers can print out well done word documents but the 3D
printers can output a 3D proto, or if it is possible currently to
design and fabricate almost perfect surgical implants but with tissue
engineering we have almost the real thing, then where do we see
ourselves in this scenario.
We are designers concerned with the restoration of the human body. For
those of you who were at Toronto and were at my presentation ‘Quo
Vadis’ (where goest thou?) you may recall that my point was that
Anaplastologist must realize that the patient has more options than
before as the crest perching technologies gradually become accessible.
In that case we are looking at merging with others on the crest to
achieve our own ends. As Suzanne Verma correctly says “We must use our
skill set, our knowledge of anatomy, and the numerous resources that
are available in technology to go beyond the traditional role”
Thus any undergraduate course in Anaplastology needs to take all these
aspects into consideration. The world or rather shall we say that
change now takes place in an accelerating fashion, that is much
faster. This requires us to anticipate those changes and respond to
them pro actively now. This is so that graduates from our courses may
always be current.
The BCCA as I see it, has a format that reflects the current
practices. When the newer technologies become current among the
majority of practitioners then I presume such questions may be
included too. For example though Osseo integration seems current among
most practitioners from the West, it is not necessarily current in all
parts of the world. Yet it has been included in the exams. Thus what
the BCCA sees as current standard practice may be included I presume.
Lets not forget that our profession is evolving and will continue to
evolve for a long time to come. Where do you see us in the future? Do
you see us involved in bio-printing, tissue engineering, 3D printing
outputs of a final product? There is yet plenty of time to catch up.
But are we qualified enough to stake claim to these new frontiers? I
want others to take us very seriously. Do you?
> For more options, visit this group athttp://
groups.google.com/group/anaplastology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -