Competition of ideas is essential for the advancement of a profession. It is essential that theorists, researchers, philosophers and others involved in the advancement of the profession not only focus on doing good (beneficence) but also focus on not doing harm (maleficence). When exponents of a theory or practice are only focused on advancing their theory or practice while not responding to critics, we would argue that this approach fails the integrity test, although the intention is beneficence. Likewise, when critics of a theory or practice do not apply the same rigorous review to their own theories or practices, they too fail the integrity test, although their intention is maleficence. Instead, we argue that the integrity test is met when exponents of a theory are open to and respond to critics and when critics apply the same rigour of review to their own theories and practices. In the profession of occupational therapy, it is not unusual for emerging theories or practices to have supporters and opponents. For example, occupational science had its supporters and opponents who questioned and defended its usefulness in the early 1990s (Pierce, 2012). Similarly the emergence of sensory approaches as a key approach in mental health occupational therapy has stimulated debate within the profession, with critics arguing that they are not occupation focused.