Can a Wickham respiratory therapist qualify for TN as a recreational therapist?

No. Appendix 2 names the therapist occupations it covers one at a time, and Respiratory Therapist is not among them. There is no residual heading for skilled health work, and the Scientific Technician or Technologist entry does not reach clinical care either, because it asks for theoretical knowledge of a named scientific discipline together with the ability to solve practical problems in it or to apply its principles to research.

The list names its occupations one at a time, and stops there

Hypothetical example: Rosaire has spent nineteen years as a respiratory therapist, running ventilator and home-oxygen programmes from a base in Wickham, and an American employer has told him it will obtain a TN by calling the position recreational therapist. Two obstacles sit in the way. First, TN reaches only the occupations Appendix 2 names, and it names the therapy occupations individually: Occupational Therapist, Physiotherapist and Recreational Therapist each appear with their own qualification rules, and Respiratory Therapist appears nowhere.

Work does not qualify because it is skilled or because it is clinical; the trades are absent from the same list for the same reason, and there is no residual category for either. Second, Scientific Technician or Technologist is frequently offered as the way around this. It is not one.

That entry is confined to theoretical knowledge of one of the scientific disciplines it names, among them biology, chemistry, engineering, forestry, geology and physics, plus the ability to solve practical problems in that discipline or to apply its principles to research, which describes laboratory or engineering support rather than the treatment of patients. Recasting the American offer in a listed title while the duties remain respiratory care makes the file worse, because the profession and the description then contradict each other on paper before an officer has asked a single question. Where the real occupation is unlisted, the useful conversation is about an employer with a qualifying corporate relationship, or about ownership routes, not about forcing TN.