Have you ever walked into a room filled with empty chairs and when you go through the process of choosing one that is not in a draft from a window, not in the front row, not in the back row, not in the way of a slide projector, not behind someone tall, not behind potential teen gigglers, etc. and then just as you finally decide and are getting settled in, someone scowls at you and says, "that's my chair." Whenever someone does something along that line I always remember the book titled, The Territorial Imperative by Robert Ardrey.1 He began his treatise with the following definition, "A territory is an area of space, whether of water, earth, or air, which an animal or group of animals defends as an exclusive preserve. The word is also used to describe the inward compulsion in animate beings to possess and defend such a space." I have many opportunities for this book to come to mind as it appears that we, as humans, have this innate sense of competing and defending what we believe is ours. Indeed, I thought of this when I first became aware of the lawsuit that the National Athletic Training Association (NATA) filed against the APTA last year. This case was settled on September 23, 2009. One of the premises of the case dealt with the question of who is "qualified" to perform manual therapy. On the APTA Web site there is a section titled "FAQs: Settlement of NATA vs. APTA Lawsuit.2 The 4^th questions reads, "Does the Joint Statement mean that the APTA chapters may not oppose state legislation that would allow athletic trainers to treat non-athletes?" The territory implicated involves the question of who should be practitioners of choice when non-athletes require rehabilitative care. I suspect that readers of this editorial (thank you, by the way) can quickly outline another potential source of competition between other practitioners who treat injuries, dysfunctions, etc. As health care dollars are not free-flowing, those who require them as a way to make a living want to ensure that the flow source is coming toward them.

I contend that there are 2 things an entity, or an individual, can do that will ensure that clients/customers seek their services above others. One thing that patients/clients look for is effective service. Reputations are built based on success (effectiveness). Another good thing is to have an entity (or profession), that provides a unique service. The American Heritage Dictionary defines unique as "Being the only one of its kind[horizontal ellipsis]Without an equal or equivalent; unparalleled."3 While I believe that it is very prudent to keep your eye on the competition, I also believe that when an entity or individual provides a unique and effective service, customers/clients will choose that entity or individual to provide the service the customer/client requires. I think that as a profession, it may be good to reflect on what we believe makes us (ie, physical therapists) unique from other providers. What is it that we can offer customers that no one else can, and can they count on effective service. By effective, I mean that for the dollars that they spend, are they going to receive interventions that will enhance their health? And, it follows that when what we do in clinics is based upon well-designed research then we, as clinicians, can more strongly be confident that our customer/clients will be well-served by the service we provide. If we want patients/clients/customers to employ our services and if we want to be the providers that patients/clients see us as the unique providers of services that "prevent the onset, symptoms, and progression of impairments, functional limitations, and disabilities that may result from diseases, disorders, conditions, or injuries,"4 then I think that we must ensure that we are indeed uniquely prepared to provide those services. If we want to claim a territory, then our actions must speak louder than our words. I believe it follows then that each physical therapist should be steadfastly committed to lifelong learning. In addition, we must abandon interventions which have not undergone rigorous research and those that are not supported by established scientific principles that are based on physics, physiology, neuroanatomy, chemistry, or biology. Each of us should continue to learn from research those interventions that have the best chance of being effective, as we should unlearn those things which have no research or sound theoretical support (based on scientific principles) for a particular technique. If we want to claim that patients/clients with impairments, functional limitations, or disabilities should be our "exclusive preserve," then we must be able to show that we are uniquely qualified to follow-through on that claim.

In this winter issue, we are assisted in being able to make that claim by the manuscripts we chose to publish after peer-review. From Tami Bannister we have support for our ability to assist patient/clients who have chronic constipation due to pelvic floor dyssynergia. We also benefit from the work of Patricia McGinnis and her colleagues as they provide a tutorial on how their sample of women perceived their quality of life as they progressed through menopause.

In this issue we also acknowledge and honor the expert reviewers who, through their commitment to enhancing our field of women's health physical therapy, allow us to offer members of the Section on Women's Health, data and information that is reliable.

Editor-in-Chief

REFERENCES