I feel that pararity with medicine is meaningless for currently competent podiatrists who are not

residency trained if minimal outdated residency basline screening criteria namely an outdated

podiatric residency training program is required and accepted for state licensure. If no money

was spent for the issue of allowing all podiatrists to practice even those that did not complete an

outdated residency training program in podiatry, this lacks compassion. It is better to be compassionate

for all currently competent podiatrists who are not residency trained  instead of doing what is "best" for the current "majority" which is pararity and increased scope of practice. I realize that in any national organization

majority vote wins and the minority sometimes is treated without compassion regarding basic

state licensure in all states for currently competent podiatrists who are not residency trained. 

I am curious how much money was spent by the APMA legislative section to attempt

to encourage basic podiatric licensure for all currently competent podiatrists who are not

residency trained in the money it set aside for state legislative highlights.

                  Regarding the APMA, I feel it is a wonderful organization in attempting

to encourage educatiion, etc... All I am saying is if there is a section on legislative highlights why not

address the issues in the paragraph above by spending some money that is keyed toward

protecting the basic licensure interests of the minority and by doing so not go forward without

first showing compassion by spending legislative money for basic protection against discrimination

of the minority section of competent podiatrists who are not residency trained and cannot leave their

current patients and practices to complete such training which will eventually become outdated anyway.

Disclaimer: The above are the personal opinions of the author. Do not rely on the above personal

opinions but consult with a licensed healthcare attorney in your state.