The aim of this article is to reflect on and contribute to developing occupational therapy as a profession. The author proposes an ethical interpretation of health and helping professions in general and occupational therapy in particular. According to this ethical interpretation, the essential function and mission of classical health and helping professions are defined by certain ethical values: the basic elements of a good human life. The author argues that the central concepts of occupational therapy, activity and participation, can plausibly be understood in this light. However, this seems to imply a rather substantial conception of well-being which the author tries to spell out. In addition, the basic principles of biomedical ethics are specified in the context of occupational therapy according to an ethical interpretation. In conclusion, four advantages of the ethical interpretation are highlighted: it adds precision and content to ethical principles and guidelines; it contributes to building up and preserving a shared professional identity; it puts emphasis on a client-centred perspective on professional work; and it provides a constructive framework for inter-professional cooperation.

Soul is what is ascribed to human beings that makes them something more than just another kind of animal. Occupations could be said to have soul when they act as something more than just a technical enterprise at the service of the state, employers, and consumers. (Freidson 2003: 172)

No abstract

Sandman points out some relevant points that certainly need further reflection. My focus will be on two interrelated points: (1) The plausibility of the pluralist value theory that I suggest, compared with the alternative, subjectivist theory suggested by Sandman. (2) The different ideals for professional responsibility and the relation between (OT) professionals and patients implied by these competing value theories.

No abstract