It is hard to make a choice but to the committee to consider that license revocation means destroying PT's and his family's future. especially no harms reported to no any of his clients.

I would go with B 

On Behalf of the patient:

Hello all, I have to go with option "A" - The Committee should do nothing. We live in a world of technology and ever-growing therapies for the human body. We see athletes and individuals who push their bodies to complete extremes on a regular day basis use these new technologies to rejuvenate their bodies and to help them recover. Why must regular individuals who visit their PT to help with aches, pains and soreness be limited to aged technology and aged procedures? Why must I only be allowed to visit a Chiropractor who will do nothing to my back and pains but am not allowed to be referred to a Cryotherapy chamber that I know has worked for me based on experience? These comments are based on actual experiences. Multiple visits to a Chiropractor left me never wanting to go again vs multiple Cryotherapy sessions that helped me feel more positive than ever. Multiple Cryotherapy sessions have without a doubt in my mind also trumped the pads that are placed on my body to send shock waves to my nerves. I find that people who get up and say Cryotherapy and or Cold Therapy is bad for you and should not be a means to help recover is absurd. What reasoning do they have, for all the doctors that throw these treatments under the rug, there are double the amount of individuals who can say that these treatments have helped them recover more than many of the treatments suggested to them in the past. It has been proven that Cryotherapy increases norepinephrine, activates cold shock proteins, decreases inflammation, improves immune function, increases metabolism, and increases antioxidant activity. This is not new science. It has been proven to help heal time and time again. These effects do come from multiple and consistent treatments rather than one off's here and there, but the fact of the matter is that if a PT decides to include it in his or her treatment session to their patient, why can't they? Why can't they do what is in the best interest of the patient? What is the fear of helping someone gain the best results while using the best treatments at their disposal? Why remain in pain if you can prevent it, that is where I get confused when reading all these articles. If you are able to help an individual feel better by using means that may help them on a regular basis, than that is what should be done 10 out of 10 times.  Having done these treatments on a regular basis, I can gladly and honestly stand by everything I have just mentioned in the most positive matter. Thank you for reading all that I had to say.

Hello all, 

I have to go with disciplinary action being taken by the board if referring to anything related to misinformation and especially towards not monitoring the treatments. That is simply a lack of care and professionalism as monitoring the sessions and informing the patients of clear, honest and truthful information is what matters most.

But if we are referring to the actual use and referral of Cryotherapy as part of PT Treatment sessions, I have to go with option "A" - The Committee should do nothing.

We live in a world of technology and ever growing therapies for the human body. We see athletes and individuals who push their bodies to complete extremes on a regular day basis use these new technologies to rejuvenate their bodies and to help them recover.

Why must regular individuals who visit their PT to help with aches, pains and soreness be limited to aged technology and aged procedures? Why must I only be allowed to visit a Chiropractor who will do nothing to my back and pains but am not allowed to be referred to a Cryotherapy chamber that I know has worked for me based on experience? These comments are based on actual experiences. Multiple visits to a Chiropractor left me never wanting to go again vs multiple Cryotherapy sessions that helped me feel more positive than ever. Multiple Cryotherapy sessions have without a doubt in my mind also trumped the pads that are placed on my body to send shock waves to my nerves. 

I find that people who get up and say Cryotherapy and or Cold Therapy is bad for you and should not be a means to help recover is absurd. What reasoning do they have, for all the doctors that throw these treatments under the rug, there are double the amount of individuals who can say that these treatments have helped them recover more than many of the treatments suggested to them in the past.

It has been proven that Cryotherapy increases norepinephrine, activates cold shock proteins, decreases inflammation, improves immune function, increases metabolism, and increases antioxidant activity. This is not new science. It has been proven to help heal time and time again. These effects do come from multiple and consistent treatments rather than one off's here and there.

The fact of the matter is that if a PT decides to include it in his or her treatment session to their patient, why can't they? Why can't they do what is in the best interest of the patient? What is the fear of helping someone gain the best results while using the best treatments at their disposal? Why remain in pain if you can prevent it, that is where I get confused when reading all these articles. 

If you are able to help an individual feel better by using means that may help them on a regular basis, than that is what should be done 10 out of 10 times. 

Having done these treatments on a regular basis, I can gladly and honestly stand by everything I have just mentioned in the most positive matter. Thank you for reading all that I had to say.  

In this case the use of Cryotherapy is not the principle concern. The lack of evidence of effectiveness is not a barrier to inclusion in a treatment plan. One could argue that use of modalities like ultrasound and laser, very common in clinical practice, would be examples which very few practitioners would consider ‘malpractice’, but lack clear evidence of efficacy  

The advertising standard is clear and evidence suggests that it was violated  

Of most concern to me is the lack of PT assessment and plan, billing for services not provided and assignment to R.A. without appropriate supervision.I refer the reader to case 2015 - 0113 that in my opinion is similar. The findings and sanctions in this example were reasonable, refecting a balance between punishment (suspention and fine) and remediation (education and supervision). Except in very extreme cases I believe there should always be a path to redemption as the above sanctions offer, hence I would not support outright revocation. 

The CPO has no problem with a physiotherapist using an "alternative" treatment provided the physio first did a traditional physio-therapeutic assessment, then offered the patient a traditional treatment before offering the "alternative" treatment, explaining to the patient the reasons for the "alternative" treatment and getting consent etc. 

The patient has the right to choose treatments, even ones that are ineffective or even if those treatments cause harm. 

This allows a physio to offer a questionable treatment like cryotherapy, or Matrix Repatterning which involves the magical entrainment of the therapist's and patient's energy fields, or the waiving of a dead chicken over a patient.

Physiotherapists should not be allowed to offer their patients quackery.

C: If contextual factors are in play (ie the PT was a new grad and the power imbalance lead them to go along with this, or the physio can legitimately demonstrate they were unaware of improper billing practices) I believe sanctioning is appropriate below the threshold of licence revocation. Unfortunately, it does not seem like that was the case in this scenario

However, in general I feel our regulatory body is too hesitant to revoke the licence of members who practice unethically. The best case scenario is that the person was unaware of existing standards - I do not want a person that ignorant of their obligations carrying the same designation as myself. Worst case, it was deliberate and malicious. A simple ethics webinar will not cut it. People do not commit ethical infractions because they don't know it's unethical. They do it because they do not care or figure they will not get caught. Examples need to be made. If other professions choose to operate that way, that is their business. I hold PTs to a higher standard.