From russest@ampex.com (Steve Russell) Mon Feb 7 19:44:12 EST 1994
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
From: russest@ampex.com (Steve Russell)
Subject: National Certification
Message-ID:
Keywords: AMTA ABMP certification USA national usenet
Sender: news@ampex.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: rcs
Organization: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City CA
References: <2ijv2a$bdd@strathspey.llnl.gov> <2iluen$mho@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 01:00:10 GMT
Lines: 41
In article <2iluen$mho@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> jamie@uwo.ca (J. Blustein) writes:
>In article <2ijv2a$bdd@strathspey.llnl.gov> keg@strathspey.llnl.gov
>(Keith Grant) wrote:
>
>>The "National" certification exam at this point has limited acceptability by
>>various states. It may become an asset to inter-state portability of
>
>I hope no one will mind my pointing out that `the "National"
>certification exam' is for the USA.
What should be happening is a move to reduce the requirements of
certification considerably to something more reasonable.
Greybear tells of a new 1000 hour requirement in his location.
At $10.00 a classroom hour that's $10,000.00 - just to learn to
give a basic massage. With all of that money going (presumably) to
schools under the banner of AMTA/ABMP which just happened to push
for massage licensure/certification.
Don't get me wrong - I believe if you are going to get paid for
massage then there should be a minimum standard you work against,
but reality-wise if you give a bad massage - you go out of business!
IT'S A SELF-LIMITING BUSINESS and as such, it should be self-regulating
if regulated at all (remember, only 17 out of 50 states regulate massage).
Another sore point is that doctors, nurses, dentists, and chiropractors
may work anywhere in a state once completing the state requirements.
No city, county, or locality may interfere with their practice except
possibly for zoning.
Massage practitioners must check each locality to see if it is even
legal for them to practice.
In a holistic health field which does not diagnose, prescribe
drugs or treatment, or otherwise offer any "traditional" medical
modalities to a client the massage practitioner is basically getting
screwed by the system.
-steve (giving away all that talent in my hands - since I
can't charge for it!)
From dwheeler@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Diane M Wheeler) Mon Feb 7 19:44:22 EST 1994
From: dwheeler@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Diane M Wheeler)
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: National Certification
Date: 7 Feb 1994 22:58:07 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <2j6h1v$bem@nic.umass.edu>
References: <2ijv2a$bdd@strathspey.llnl.gov> <2iluen$mho@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: twain.ucs.umass.edu
Steve Russell (russest@ampex.com) wrote:
: In article <2iluen$mho@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> jamie@uwo.ca (J. Blustein) writes:
: >In article <2ijv2a$bdd@strathspey.llnl.gov> keg@strathspey.llnl.gov
: >(Keith Grant) wrote:
: >
: >>The "National" certification exam at this point has limited acceptability by
: >>various states. It may become an asset to inter-state portability of
: >
: >I hope no one will mind my pointing out that `the "National"
: >certification exam' is for the USA.
: What should be happening is a move to reduce the requirements of
: certification considerably to something more reasonable.
: Greybear tells of a new 1000 hour requirement in his location.
: At $10.00 a classroom hour that's $10,000.00 - just to learn to
: give a basic massage. With all of that money going (presumably) to
: schools under the banner of AMTA/ABMP which just happened to push
: for massage licensure/certification.
: Don't get me wrong - I believe if you are going to get paid for
: massage then there should be a minimum standard you work against,
: but reality-wise if you give a bad massage - you go out of business!
: IT'S A SELF-LIMITING BUSINESS and as such, it should be self-regulating
: if regulated at all (remember, only 17 out of 50 states regulate massage).
: Another sore point is that doctors, nurses, dentists, and chiropractors
: may work anywhere in a state once completing the state requirements.
: No city, county, or locality may interfere with their practice except
: possibly for zoning.
: Massage practitioners must check each locality to see if it is even
: legal for them to practice.
: In a holistic health field which does not diagnose, prescribe
: drugs or treatment, or otherwise offer any "traditional" medical
: modalities to a client the massage practitioner is basically getting
: screwed by the system.
: -steve (giving away all that talent in my hands - since I
: can't charge for it!)
I have been reading a number of these articles over the last couple of
weeks as far as regulations on a state and national level with the
various organizations such as AMTA being implicated in the necessity of
the certifications at the state level. The AMTA does not have direct
influence on the state/local regulations. Each state "makes up" their
own rules as far as certification/licensing goes. In the state of New
Hampshire this past year has seen MAJOR upheval in this area where the 3
member board has really be, shall I say called on the carpet, for various
reasons such as not being qualified to create the test, having ulterior
motives, etc. There is a suit in progress by last years students who
took this course (some from AMTA accredited schools and some from none
accredited schools) because of the whole fiasco it created. Conneticut
just passed a law that even if you have been to an AMTA school it will
not be good enough. You will have to have a certification from another
school that just opened this year in Conneticut. And the catch is that
currently practicing therapists aren't grandfather claused in. The National
Certification test given by the AMTA is not a requirement but it does add
to your personal profile. You will see other health care professionals
having various certifications. The AMTA has/is doing work to work
towards a nationally recognized license.
I also become quite "nervous" when I saw remarks as "why do I need so
many hours just to rub someone's feet?" I can tell you why - because
massage therapy is not just a feel good business. It has direct
coralation to specific physical/mental conditions in a persons body. If
you do not know what a person's health situation is and how that is
effected by the massage you plan to do to that person you could jepordize
that person's health - and for those with High blood pressure, send them
over the edge. New Hampshire requires 850 hours now and I plan to
continue with more education later. This doesn't even include your study
and praticum time which for us bring the total to around 1500 hours.
When someone gets on your table, you accept a responsiblity to that
person - wouldn't you want your therapist to know how your body works and
be able to evaluate what massage would be of most benifit to your
health? Many of the hours of class time are devoted to things other than
massage technique - Anatomy & Physiology, Nutrition, Health/Hygiene,
Pathology, etc.
You are right, we don't diagnose as a therapist, but in knowing your
patient and how the body works you can make suggestions to your client
that a visit to the doctor may be wise - if you know the signs/symptoms.
Well I've really rambled on enough, so I will close.
Diane Wheeler
Massage Therapy Student
From russest@Ampex.COM (Steve Russell) Tue Feb 8 21:54:46 EST 1994
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
From: russest@Ampex.COM (Steve Russell)
Subject: National Certification
Message-ID:
Originator: russest@rcs
Sender: news@ampex.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: rcs
Organization: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City CA
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:58:20 GMT
Lines: 154
(Matt, I'm posting this public since your mail bounced)
|mg@unomaha.edu (Matt Galardi) writes:
|>russest@ampex.com (Steve Russell) writes:
|>
|>What should be happening is a move to reduce the requirements of
|>certification considerably to something more reasonable.
|
|Reducing the hours is probably one of the worst things that could be
|done. I'm in Nebraska and we have a minimum 1,000 hour
|requirement. Besides massage, one should have a good knowledge
|of human anatomy, kinesology, pathology, neurology. Massage
|is not only ment for the purpose of relaxation, but for it's
|theraputic purposes. The more you know of the human body and
|it's systems the better job you can do in helping your client. Also, if
|you work under a doctor or chiropractor you can get insurance money for
|your work.
|
|>Greybear tells of a new 1000 hour requirement in his location.
|>At $10.00 a classroom hour that's $10,000.00 - just to learn to
|>give a basic massage. With all of that money going (presumably) to
|>schools under the banner of AMTA/ABMP which just happened to push
|>for massage licensure/certification.
|
|Our tuition for the full school is only $3,600.
|
|>Don't get me wrong - I believe if you are going to get paid for
|>massage then there should be a minimum standard you work against,
|>but reality-wise if you give a bad massage - you go out of business!
|>
|>IT'S A SELF-LIMITING BUSINESS and as such, it should be self-regulating
|>if regulated at all (remember, only 17 out of 50 states regulate massage).
|
|As for regulating, I know the national trend is pointing more and more
|toward a solid educational background to become a therapist. If you're
|just looking at massage therapy as just giving a massage, you may be
|looking in the wrong direction. Many sports teams now carry therapists
|with them, at collegiant and pro levels. With the insurance industry
|starting to recognize therapists as a viable alternate to keep a person
|healthy, one should be able to see that a massage therapist should be
|fully trained to know the human body.
|
|>
|>Another sore point is that doctors, nurses, dentists, and chiropractors
|>may work anywhere in a state once completing the state requirements.
|No city, county, or locality may interfere with their practice except
|>possibly for zoning.
|>
|>Massage practitioners must check each locality to see if it is even
|>legal for them to practice.
|>
|>In a holistic health field which does not diagnose, prescribe
|>drugs or treatment, or otherwise offer any "traditional" medical
|>modalities to a client the massage practitioner is basically getting
|>screwed by the system.
|>
|>-steve (giving away all that talent in my hands - since I
|> can't charge for it!)
If I wanted to be a physical therapist I wouldn't complain about
the training hours.
Reality-wise, how much more do you need to know about bones, muscles,
nerves, tissues, and circulation than you get in 25-50 hours of
classroom instruction?
I trained in electrical engineering several years ago (LOTS of years
ago) but when you are reduced to board swap and pulling wiring
there is very little application of higher engineering principals.
Greybear tells of learning three or more types of massage, energy
work, and many other things in addition to basic body mechanics in
a 1000 hour course.
That may be all well and good but do you really need to learn
_everything_ in order to give a good basic massage? Energy work,
in particular, raises some hackles in the main-stream medical
establishment - even among chiropractors. I can't even talk to
my family about the Reiki I've taken without them thinking I
am either seeing things or have been brainwashed by "that cult
school" I went to to learn massage.
I don't doubt the need for _continuing_ education. Medical
technologists and nurses have finally been swept up with a
continuing education requirement. My school went as far as
getting approved for nurse-CEU training which should help
open more eyes into the medical establishment.
The fact remains, however, that (at least in the state of
California) I've seen local license requirements ranging from Zero
to 1000 hours or more with no restrictions to extreme restrictions.
And there are some places that only allow _same-sex_ massage.
Given that the state only offers certification of a CMT through
a minimum > 100-hours < training at an approved post-secondary
school, I fail to see a need to extend the hours of training for
giving a basic massage to clients beyond the existing state mandate.
I do strongly believe other services in massage technique or energy work
should not be provided unless approved training in the field is received
and certified - you don't fix a car at an appliance repair store.
What pisses me off is that I can either work - if I move - or not work
if I can't afford to set up shop outside my home.
We, as massage practioners, do not diagnose, prescribe, or treat any
symptoms of illness. WE ARE NOT DOCTORS. All we do is make people feel
better by touch yet because of that (the touch) we get regulated up the
wazoo compared to an appliance repair place, a barbershop, a beautyshop,
or even a doctor or chiropractor. You don't see doctors and
chiropractors having background checks and being fingerprinted
just to practice.
This whole thing with "oooo, touchy-feely, there must be something
sinful going on - lets' tax and regulate it!!!" is just not right or fair.
You can work in a health club and give massage without a license.
If you can give massage in City A without a license yet cross the
street and massage someone in their home in City B and get arrested,
is that fair?
This whole thing is crazy!!! Only seventeen states out of 50 even attempt
to regulate massage (as of last October). European and Asian countries
do not regulate it beyond collecting income taxes on it.
I went round and round with the city/county where I live and I
finally determined that it would be easier to move out of state
rather than work illegally to build up a clientel to support a
stand-alone business (outside of my home).
Sorry, got carried away.
I let the government get to me sometimes....
I thank you for sharing your very valid points. Training in the
field is important. I just feel that you should be able to stage
your professional growth to fit your personal growth and clients needs.
I was fortuate enough to find a school which filled the state mandate
and taught on weekends (still pulling wires and swapping boards full
time, otherwise). If not for that I'd never have considered retraining
in a new field. But by that criteria (weekend classes) it could take
over _two years_ to get 1000 hours in.
The entry level practitioner - IMHO - just doesn't need that level
of training.
It is unfortunate that the school I attended did not provide a full
disclosure of the existing climate in regards to employment in the
state or surrounding cities, although that was my responsibility in
the first place.
-steve
From keg@strathspey.llnl.gov (Keith Grant) Tue Feb 8 21:53:14 EST 1994
From: keg@strathspey.llnl.gov (Keith Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: National Certification
Date: 8 Feb 1994 13:14:58 -0800
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 109
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2j8vci$jug@strathspey.llnl.gov>
References: <2ijv2a$bdd@strathspey.llnl.gov> <2iluen$mho@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> <2j6h1v$bem@nic.umass.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: strathspey.llnl.gov
In article <2j6h1v$bem@nic.umass.edu>, dwheeler@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Diane M Wheeler) writes:
can't charge for it!)
|>
|> I also become quite "nervous" when I saw remarks as "why do I need so
|> many hours just to rub someone's feet?" I can tell you why - because
|> massage therapy is not just a feel good business. It has direct
|> coralation to specific physical/mental conditions in a persons body. If
|> you do not know what a person's health situation is and how that is
|> effected by the massage you plan to do to that person you could jepordize
|> that person's health - and for those with High blood pressure, send them
|> over the edge. New Hampshire requires 850 hours now and I plan to
|> continue with more education later. This doesn't even include your study
|> and praticum time which for us bring the total to around 1500 hours.
|> When someone gets on your table, you accept a responsiblity to that
|> person - wouldn't you want your therapist to know how your body works and
|> be able to evaluate what massage would be of most benifit to your
|> health? Many of the hours of class time are devoted to things other than
|> massage technique - Anatomy & Physiology, Nutrition, Health/Hygiene,
|> Pathology, etc.
|>
|> You are right, we don't diagnose as a therapist, but in knowing your
|> patient and how the body works you can make suggestions to your client
|> that a visit to the doctor may be wise - if you know the signs/symptoms.
|>
|> Well I've really rambled on enough, so I will close.
|>
|> Diane Wheeler
|> Massage Therapy Student
|>
I think the concerns that Diane expressed above exemplify where real
differences of opinion on the role and responsibilities of massage exist.
I think many problems occur because multiple issues become bundled together
into a single certification concept.
The first issue is that begs separation is the concept of minimum
certification versus the competency requirements needed for rehabilitative`
massage. I would certainly agree that not all massage needs can be
simplified to the level of a basic foot or back rub. It is even more true,
however, that there is a vast need in our society and culture for just that
level of care and nurturing. Stress and isolation have become endemic. I
believe that a basic massage certification level that gives people a
path for earning a living providing nurturing, relaxing massages is a
large step in the right direction.
A second issue concerns safety and scope of practice. A pilot friend of mine
has confirmed that the FAA deems it reasonable to issue a limited commercial
pilots license (e.g. suitable for local sight-seeing trips) with 250 hours
of training. The safety issue here is life and death, in a situation very
difficult for the client to walk out the door. I somehow find it difficult
to believe that it's that much harder to teach a basic massage practioner
to screen clients and recognize basic contraindications. I also believe
that past a very basic level that ANY massage therapist should not be
evaluating medical safety without the confirmation of a treating
physician. The ABMP has the right idea in their literature: "when in
doubt, refer out".
My experience with practioners who have started with 100 hour certificates
in California, is that many of them don't stop there. Most of them use
the opportunity to get their initial training with a limited upfront time
and cash outlay (At S.F. Bay Srea prices 100 hours is about $900. The local
AMTA 500 hour program is about $6500.) People gain some experience and
perspective and enroll in continuing education classes. Since they already
are in business, these classes now count as continuing education for tax
purposes. Because it is broken up, the whole education process can also
be done part-time. Far from being incompetents learning at the expense
of their clients, these are competent basic practioners learning at the
benefit of their continuing and new clients.
I'll never argue against the benefits of continuing education. But I will
argue for a diversity of approaches towards advanced training that allows for
multiple time-scales, learning-styles, and backgrounds. Along with training
in anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, pathology, and advanced techniques
(e.g. trigger point, PNF, deep-tissue, cranial-sacral, sports massage, ...)
training in auxillary disicplines like tai chi, akido, dance, music,
and meditation can be extremely useful. These later all improve the ability
of a practitioner to provide massage while using effective, flowing, body
mechanics. Other inovative approaches might offer externships, giving
continuing education units for outreach programs bringing massage into
the community. The need for touch among trauma victims, the aged, and the
terminally ill (with appropriate medical input of course) is well-documented.
Other considerations are to insure that massage education and testing
proceduces are constituted to allow participation by those who are
dyslexic, blind, deaf, ...
In summary, I'D argue that instead of inflexible, high hour programs
oriented towards technical massage, we need uniform, basic certification
appoaches that promote maximum integration of massage into society. Issues
of advanced training and more technical massage techniques can then be
handled by continuing education. In some ways this has its parallels with
the medical profession backing away from a plethora of specialists towards
primary care physicians and physician assistants.
--
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
I I Common sense and a sense of humor are the I
I Keith Eric Grant I same thing, moving at different speeds. A I
I keg@strathspey.llnl.gov I sense of humor is just common sense, dancing. I
I I (or perhaps dancing is just common sense) I
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
I For certain it is, that any ideas expressed above are of my own humble I
I opinion and bear nary a relation to the policies or positions of LLNL I
I or of any agency or contractor of the U.S. Government. I
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From russest@Ampex.COM (Steve Russell) Wed Feb 9 08:55:15 EST 1994
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
From: russest@Ampex.COM (Steve Russell)
Subject: National Certification (Yes, again)
Message-ID:
Originator: russest@rcs
Sender: news@ampex.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: rcs
Organization: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City CA
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 08:12:13 GMT
Lines: 309
dwheeler@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Diane M Wheeler) writes:
>
> I have been reading a number of these articles over the last couple of
> weeks as far as regulations on a state and national level with the
> various organizations such as AMTA being implicated in the necessity of
> the certifications at the state level. The AMTA does not have direct
> influence on the state/local regulations. Each state "makes up" their
> own rules as far as certification/licensing goes. In the state of New
> Hampshire this past year has seen MAJOR upheval in this area where the 3
> member board has really been, shall I say called on the carpet, for various
> reasons such as not being qualified to create the test, having ulterior
> motives, etc. There is a suit in progress by last years students who
> took this course (some from AMTA accredited schools and some from none
> accredited schools) because of the whole fiasco it created. Conneticut
> just passed a law that even if you have been to an AMTA school it will
> not be good enough. You will have to have a certification from another
> school that just opened this year in Conneticut. And the catch is that
> currently practicing therapists aren't grandfather claused in. The National
> Certification test given by the AMTA is not a requirement but it does add
> to your personal profile. You will see other health care professionals
> having various certifications. The AMTA has/is doing work to work
> towards a nationally recognized license.
>
> I also become quite "nervous" when I saw remarks as "why do I need so
> many hours just to rub someone's feet?" I can tell you why - because
> massage therapy is not just a feel good business. It has direct
> correlation to specific physical/mental conditions in a persons body. If
> you do not know what a person's health situation is and how that is
> effected by the massage you plan to do to that person you could jepordize
> that person's health - and for those with High blood pressure, send them
> over the edge. New Hampshire requires 850 hours now and I plan to
> continue with more education later. This doesn't even include your study
> and praticum time which for us bring the total to around 1500 hours.
Anatomy and physiology should not take more than 25-50 hours. How much
more time to you have to spend learning about the human system? Let's
get real here. We aren't cutting into the body as if we'd have to put
it back together again later. We are not doctors. We are _healers_.
As for a person's existing health - that is what you take the extra twenty
to thirty minutes for when filling out a client information and release
form during the initial visit.
For bodywork/massage, initially there isn't much more that you are
going to do for a first-time client than a basic massage unless they
come to you for something specific - like to get Rolfed (oof, that
even _sounds_ painful).
It is always impressive to have "Swedish, Sports, Esalen,
Rolfing/Structural Integration, Trager and Hellerwork Given Here" on
your shingle but IMO it's better to get really good at the basics
first instead of trying to learn it all and giving a mediocre performance.
> When someone gets on your table, you accept a responsiblity to that
> person - wouldn't you want your therapist to know how your body works and
> be able to evaluate what massage would be of most benefit to your
> health? Many of the hours of class time are devoted to things other than
> massage technique - Anatomy & Physiology, Nutrition, Health/Hygiene,
> Pathology, etc.
Again, my comments on A&P above. Nutrition and health/hygiene are issues
that we - as massage practitioners - are NOT LICENSED TO DISCUSS with
our clients. It comes under the heading of PRESCRIPTION and TREATMENT.
Massage practitioners DO NOT TREAT. We are not doctors. We may _suggest_
that a client take up questions of nutrition and health/hygiene with
_their_ private doctor but _our_ practice is limited to something like,
"Gee, I've seen that before and this [process/treatment/herb/practitioner]
has helped in that situation. Why don't you ask _your_ doctor?"
> You are right, we don't diagnose as a therapist, but in knowing your
> patient and how the body works you can make suggestions to your client
> that a visit to the doctor may be wise - if you know the signs/symptoms.
Of course pathology should be a part of any system associated with
hands-on work with a client. As well as lot's of other topics
which are pertinent to a massage practice.
We also cover a variety of skin diseases and medical conditions but
our practice - by law - is limited to pointing out these observations
to our clients and providing a referral letter to our client's doctor.
We received instruction in recommended exercises for both specific
and general applications but still - they have to be given as a suggestion
with confirmation by the client's physician.
One thing not mentioned so far is how much psychology do you need to deal
with a client. In my class we spent a great deal of time on interpersonal
relations, psychology, empathy, and learning to deal with a client
that has "flipped-out" on you.
Yes, I know you don't massage away from the heart.
How many hours does it take to learn that?
The question still remains - just how much time does it take to learn
all of this? How much detail is required to be proficient? Do you have
to know chapter and verse for hundreds of skin conditions or is it
sufficient to know that something is abnormal? Do you need to have an
entire suite of techniques to start a massage practice? I think not.
We are _not_ medical practitioners.
We are _not_ involved in a medical practice.
We may bend, fold, or spindle the human body but we do not mutilate it.
We _are_ healers, which is something more than can be said about
the current state of the medical profession.
The AMA chases _symptoms_.
We go for the _cure_.
And just how much longer will it be before we will need a college degree
to practice massage?
If we don't speak up now then we'll soon be cubby-holed into the AMA
as a sub-group and wind up needing a master's degree or better to
practice and then this wonderful holistic art will be yet another
victom of organized medicine.
A massage practitioner is a _holistic_ practitioner. It is a practice
that hasn't changed substantially for hundreds of years. Sure the
techniques have improved in recent history (we don't have nearly the
number of people dropping dead from heart attacks due to friction in
the wrong direction). However, the core of the practice is giving back
that missing human touch - something the AMA dropped a long time ago.
You don't need a college degree to work from your heart. You don't need
a thousand or more hours to relate to a client on a personal basis.
We connect with our clients on a one-to-one basis. I'd personally hate
to see what should be a holistic experience regimented, regulated,
and licensed like any other medical practice because once it is,
the medical establishment will start tearing it apart and screwing
with it until it becomes no more effective than "modern" medical science.
Can you imagine your family doctor accepting Reiki as a practical
therapeutic treatment? How about color therapy? Chiropractors weren't
recognized as a legitimate practice until very recently - the 1970's.
Same thing with Acupuncture.
How about Reflexology? Hey, when one of our students accidently slipped
and nailed another student with an elbow to the soler plexus I didn't
know what was funnier - the expression on his face or the sight of
two instructors rushing over, grabbing his feet, and starting reflexology
on them.
You know it works. I know it works.
Convice your doctor it works. Or the state.
You actually _want_ the state to tell you what you can and cannot
do with a client?
When we give massage it is a holistic healing art - not just prodding
muscles and tissue - and it is NOT INVASIVE (except for the occasional
elbow).
At a 100-hour training level I can get 4 million in client liability
insurance. That is a pretty good indication of how safe massage is
for a client. People are just not being hospitalized or killed by
massage practitioners. The courts are not jammed with personal injury
claims against massage practitioners.
Of the few cases I've heard of:
In Hawaii, a state with 1800 licensed massage practitioners,
only four clients claimed physical injury to the neck or
back due to negligence in the last six years.
The Regulated Industries Complaints Office (RICO) of the
Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs of Hawaii sent
an advisory letter in the first case, found no violation or
insufficient evidence in the second and third cases, and
the fourth is still pending (as of Oct, 1993).
Where personal injury was charged, two of the massage
therapists had been licensed through the apprenticeship
route and two through the school route. All four had been
licensed for _over two years_ [emphasis mine] prior to
the allegations.
New Hampshire is state which regulates massage. Know what they
had to say when asked about substantiating reports that massage
regulation (1) results in more competent massage therapists,
(2) protects the public, or (3) is advantageous in any other way?
"I am unaware of any research report or documented studies
which indicate that credentialing results in more competent
massage therapists, protects the public, or is advantageous
in any way." (Theresa A. Jarvis, R.N., Health Facilities
Coordinator, Bureau of Health facilities Administration,
New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services,
June 2, 1993)
Or this from Rhode Island:
"I am not aware of any studies regarding the improvements
in treatment delivery which you mention" (Russell J. Spaight,
Administrator, Professional Regulating, Rhode Island Department
of Health, May 13, 1993)
How about Texas:
"This in response to your questionnaire concerning massage
therapists. I am not aware of any research in a scholarly
journal concerning the regulation of massage therapists."
(Becky Berryhill, Program Administrator, Massage Therapy
Registration Program, Professional Licensing and Certification
Division, Texas Department of Health, May 6, 1993)
Let's head north of the border:
"... I would like to inform you that in the Province of
Quebec, the title and activities of massage therapists are
not regulated.
"The Office des Professions conducted, in 1990 and 1991, an
extensive research project on the need to regulate alternative
professions in Quebec. A part of the study covered manual
therapies and massage.
"A research report and the position [ie. recommendation] of
the Office des Professions to the Minister Responsible for
the Application of Professional Laws, ... , were released
in April 1992.
"One of the main recommendations is that it is not necessary
to regulate alternative therapies, including massage therapy,
because they do not represent any serious risk of harm
to the public.
"This recommendation is based on the fact that none of the
38 groups that we consulted specifically on manual therapies
was able to demonstrate or document any prejudice or
damage caused by incompetent massage therapists." (Thomas J.
Mulcair, President of the government Office des Professions of
the Province of Quebec, Canada, June 3, 1993)
The groups they consulted with included four massage schools and
associations of massage schools, seven professional massage organizations,
the Office of Consumer Protection, Administration of Safety in Sports,
Ministry of Public Safety, Ministry of Higher Education and Science,
Ministry of Health and Social Services, Bureau of Insurance, and the
Canadian Association of Personal Insurance Companies. Note that Ontario
and British Columbia do regulate massage while the other seven provinces
do not.
Europe does not regulate massage.
Australia does not regulate massage.
We here in America _don't_ need a legislative body regulating
us from the outside.
AMTA registration means that you've worked on an AMTA schools' clients
for free, or rather, paid the school for the privilege of working on
the school's clients for free.
Registration beyond business license and collection of taxes is just
another way to feed the maw of all those bodies pushing for regulation
of the massage profession. You pay for background checks, fingerprinting,
testing for veneral disease, business license, on top of the XXXX number
of hours and XXXX number of dollars for training. If you finally meet
the state certification then you may or may not meet a local certification.
You may not even be able to work on half of your potential clientelle
if a local regulation mandates same-sex-only massage.
There is no research which justifies compulsory credentialing of massage
practitioners. There is no objective performance test available that
can indicate a practitioners competence. There is no way for you, a client,
or any other person to tell the difference between a 100/200/400/800/1000
hour student. These things depend entirely on motivation, attitude, intent,
intuition, and skill of the practitioner. No state law which regulates
massage can certify that an accredited school can crank out a 500 or 1000
hour student that has achieved a state-mandated level of motivation or
intuition.
A bad massage is a bad massage whether given by a rank beginner or a
practitioner with 2000 client-hours. If you do bad work then eventually
you have _no_ work - ie. massage is self-regulating.
Think about it. Every client is a certifier. Every massage is a test.
Every practitioner is tested each time they give a massage. If you
pass the test the client comes back. If you fail the test you file
Chapter 11. It's easy, cheap, safe, and it works. It works in the 33
states which currently have _no_ state regulation and it also worked
well in the other 17 states before they started regulation.
I give good massage.
I know I do because my clients say I do. They come back.
> Well I've really rambled on enough, so I will close.
> Diane Wheeler
> Massage Therapy Student
Diane, you have no concept of the idea of rambling.....
-steve :-*
California Certified practitioner of | Practitioner Member, ABMP
Therapeutic Massage and Reflexology |
Graduate, Kathleen Sikorski School of Massage,
(in association with Solar Cross Center)
(this and $0.75 will buy me a Diet Pepsi....)
From Bill_Arnett@mindlink.bc.ca (Bill Arnett) Wed Feb 9 08:56:11 EST 1994
From: Bill_Arnett@mindlink.bc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: Certification
Date: 9 Feb 94 10:48:55 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 34
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <38298@mindlink.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mindlink.bc.ca
Steve Russell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact remains, however, that (at least in the state of
California) I've seen local license requirements ranging from Zero
to 1000 hours or more with no restrictions to extreme restrictions.
And there are some places that only allow _same-sex_ massage.
Given that the state only offers certification of a CMT through
a minimum > 100-hours < training at an approved post-secondary
school, I fail to see a need to extend the hours of training for
giving a basic massage to clients beyond the existing state mandate.
<<<<<<<<<<
Here in BC there's only one school that offers training for
certification. Their *only* program is 3-years, full-time.
It costs about $24,000. At the end you write an exam that allows
you to become a registered massage therapist (RMT). Ontario
certification is transferable. Also, I've been told that the
*exam* (written) is the only manditory part of the process, so you
might be able to train elsewhere and then pay something to do the
exam.
The interesting part, though, is that you are free to practice
*without* the RMT certification. The only requirement (I don't
know if it backed up by law) is that you can't advertise "massage".
You CAN advertise "swedish bodywork", etc.
Cheers. Bill.
--
Bill_Arnett@mindlink.bc.ca Bill Arnett Consulting
PO Box 32593, - Mainframe, IBM PC, and
Aberdeen Centre P.O. Macintosh programming
Richmond, BC. V6X 3S1 - Technical writing
"See me. Feel me. Touch me. Heal me." - The Who
From keg@strathspey.llnl.gov (Keith Grant) Wed Feb 9 16:46:56 EST 1994
From: keg@strathspey.llnl.gov (Keith Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: Certification
Date: 9 Feb 1994 10:03:15 -0800
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 44
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2jb8h3$n3d@strathspey.llnl.gov>
References: <38298@mindlink.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: strathspey.llnl.gov
In article <38298@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bill_Arnett@mindlink.bc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
|> Steve Russell wrote:
|>
|> Here in BC there's only one school that offers training for
|> certification. Their *only* program is 3-years, full-time.
|> It costs about $24,000. At the end you write an exam that allows
|> you to become a registered massage therapist (RMT). Ontario
|> certification is transferable. Also, I've been told that the
|> *exam* (written) is the only manditory part of the process, so you
|> might be able to train elsewhere and then pay something to do the
|> exam.
|>
|> The interesting part, though, is that you are free to practice
|> *without* the RMT certification. The only requirement (I don't
|> know if it backed up by law) is that you can't advertise "massage".
|> You CAN advertise "swedish bodywork", etc.
I've been told (by people who have taught in or been through the program)
that there is a two-year physician assistant program offered at Standford
University. Supposedly the program is administered by Foothill Community
and offered at community college tuition rates.
It's an interesting social phenomenon and comment that it may be quicker and
less expensive to certify to administer routine medical care (albeit under the
supervision of a full physician) than, in some cases, to become a registered
massage therapist. On the other hand, traditional medicical care has found
touch important to be an important enough healing agent that there are
numerous articles on massage in nursing journals (check MEDLINE). Do we
really want a culture in which the easiest way to get a basic massage is to
end up in a hospital?
--
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
I I Common sense and a sense of humor are the I
I Keith Eric Grant I same thing, moving at different speeds. A I
I keg@strathspey.llnl.gov I sense of humor is just common sense, dancing. I
I I (or perhaps dancing is just common sense) I
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
I For certain it is, that any ideas expressed above are of my own humble I
I opinion and bear nary a relation to the policies or positions of LLNL I
I or of any agency or contractor of the U.S. Government. I
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From aaa@scs.leeds.ac.uk Fri Feb 11 11:49:02 EST 1994
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
From: csc8aaa@sun060.leeds.ac.uk (A Adams)
Subject: Re: National Certification (Yes, again)
Reply-To: aaa@scs.leeds.ac.uk
Organization: SCS, U of Leeds, UK.
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 19:19:35 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Feb9.191935.8141@leeds.ac.uk>
References:
Sender: nntp@leeds.ac.uk
Lines: 31
Well, luckily we don't seem to ahve this sort of BS over here, and
I'm just an amateur anyway. The problem I can see with massage
regulation is that there are so many different ways of doing massage,
and what one school teaches, another school may tell you to avoid.
Case in point - recently I criticised someone else for putting
direct pressure on muscle knots, only to be told that that was how
she had been trained. now, both my research and personal experience
(massuer and massagee) tell me how risky direct muscle pressure is
(especially the way she was doing it, as a quicky 2 minute thing)
due to the risk of bruising the muscle of the knot and displacing
the tension into other knots making them worse (two moderately
tense knots are bearable, but work on one and displace the tension
to the other one and the other one can get so knotted as to be
damaged). Until and unless there is far more research into how massage
works, there is no right way to do it.
As has been said, you give someone a naff massage and you can give
them pain but no permanent physical damage. I've always told people:
You're either sensitive or your not - if your sensitive and
concentrate you'll automatically give a decent massage and training
just makes it better. If you're not sensitive, you can be trained
to give a passable general massage to someone who isn't in too bad
shape - anything else, forget it.
--
TTFN, Zaphod (Two Heads, No Brain)*E-mail*aaa@scs.leeds.ac.uk********
************************************snail*Flat 18,26 Brudenell Road**
**"If you're not here to kick *******mail*Leeds,LS6 1BD,UK***********
**ass, get out." - jms ***************Tel*UK-0532 789237*************
From singer@cmb26.larc.nasa.gov (Bart Singer) Wed Feb 9 16:49:45 EST 1994
From: singer@cmb26.larc.nasa.gov (Bart Singer)
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: National Certification
Date: 9 Feb 1994 21:11:27 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
Lines: 30
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb26.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: russest@Ampex.COM's message of Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:58:20 GMT
X-Md4-Signature: 5b40adfdeba8dcabbce14ee2e8afd0e5
In article russest@Ampex.COM (Steve Russell) writes:
[lots of stuff deleted]
We, as massage practioners, do not diagnose, prescribe, or treat any
symptoms of illness. WE ARE NOT DOCTORS. All we do is make people feel
better by touch yet because of that (the touch) we get regulated up the
wazoo compared to an appliance repair place, a barbershop, a beautyshop,
or even a doctor or chiropractor. You don't see doctors and
chiropractors having background checks and being fingerprinted
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
just to practice.
[lots more stuff deleted]
I can't comment about MD's and chiropractors, but engineers DO get
fingerprinted and DO need to provide character references in order to
take the take the exams that are required to become a licensed
professional engineer.
--
Bart Singer
High Technology Corp.
MS 156
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681
b.a.singer@larc.nasa.gov
(804) 864-2316
From Bill_Arnett@mindlink.bc.ca (Bill Arnett) Thu Feb 10 07:40:42 EST 1994
From: Bill_Arnett@mindlink.bc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: National Certification (Yes, again)
Date: 10 Feb 94 10:36:57 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 64
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <38390@mindlink.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mindlink.bc.ca
Steve Russell
Address : russest@Ampex.COM wrote:
>It is always impressive to have "Swedish, Sports, Esalen,
>Rolfing/Structural Integration, Trager and Hellerwork Given Here" on
>your shingle but IMO it's better to get really good at the basics
>first instead of trying to learn it all and giving a mediocre performance.
...
>A bad massage is a bad massage whether given by a rank beginner or a
>practitioner with 2000 client-hours. If you do bad work then eventually
>you have _no_ work - ie. massage is self-regulating.
I've been worked on by one therapist who had completed two years of
full-time training at the only local massage school. He had nearly
completed his required hours to become registered. It was obvious
that he had an excellent *theoretical* knowledge of the workings
of the human body, but as a masseur he was *pathetic*! He was
completely unable to "tune-in" to my body. He knew the strokes, but
was just following a recipe.
The sad thing is that he probably *did* get his certification and is
probably now receiving referrals from doctors. Meanwhile, many
excellent masseurs/masseuses can't afford the time or the money to
enroll in a 3-year training program.
I hope that economics *do* put him out of business, but it unfortunate
that he would have to put in 3-years and a ton of money to find out
that he doesn't have the talent.
I heard a bunch of similar stories about students and graduates of
that program. It seems clear that tons of training and even certification
does *not* guarantee competence.
>Note that Ontario
>and British Columbia do regulate massage while the other seven provinces
>do not.
As I said yesterday, B.C. allows you to practice massage without being
registered, but you have to call it "bodywork". The main benefits of
being registered are being eligible for medical referals and being
recognized for medical insurance and accident insurance claims.
>Yes, I know you don't massage away from the heart.
>How many hours does it take to learn that?
The local massage school teaches their students to only stroke *up*
the back (never *down*) because you always have to stroke toward the
heart. This seems fairly pointless to me since there are no major
surface veins in the back as there are in the limbs. There is no
single direction that is clearly "toward the heart" from a circulatory
point of view.
The locally trained RMTs all seem to adhere to this "rule" but my
experience with people trained elsewhere (including books) suggests
that most other schools don't follow this "rule".
Opinions?
Bill.
--
Bill_Arnett@mindlink.bc.ca Bill Arnett Consulting
PO Box 32593, - Mainframe, IBM PC, and
Aberdeen Centre P.O. Macintosh programming
Richmond, BC. V6X 3S1 - Technical writing
"See me. Feel me. Touch me. Heal me." - The Who
From steven8@delphi.com Tue Feb 22 11:05:25 EST 1994
Article: 2368 of alt.backrubs
Path: falcon.ccs.uwo.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: steven8@delphi.com
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: National Certification
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 00:37:47 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 15
Message-ID:
References: <2ijv2a$bdd@strathspey.llnl.gov> <2iluen$mho@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca> <2j6h1v$bem@nic.umass.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com
X-To: Diane M Wheeler
While much of what you say has merit regarding licensure for Massage
Therapists, please get your facts straight. I practice in CT and am licensed
by the state under the grandparenting caluse of the law. In addition, the
requirements for licensing in CT w
ill include passing the national certification exam; will not require
attendance at a particular school (I graduated from the Swedish Institute in
NYC). Setting at least minimum standards is essential for those of us who take
this work seriously as part o
f the health care professions. My own interest is in medical massage and being
licensed will be very helpful in gaining credibility with the MD's whose
referrals mean my livelihood, not to mention reimbursement for my patients from
insurance.
Lastly, I know of only one state where localities regulate the practice of
masage therapy. That is California, where else would such a looney system
prevail?
From nkraft@crash.cts.com (Norman Kraft) Wed Mar 30 17:51:32 EST 1994
Article: 2558 of alt.backrubs
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Path: falcon.ccs.uwo.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!udel!news.sprintlink.net!crash!nkraft
From: nkraft@crash.cts.com (Norman Kraft)
Subject: Re: A.M.T.A.
Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET/crash), San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 17:55:51 GMT
Message-ID:
References: <2n8tvh$4ob@search01.news.aol.com>
Sender: news@crash.cts.com (news subsystem)
Nntp-Posting-Host: crash.cts.com
Lines: 36
In russest@ampex.com (Steve Russell) writes:
>The fact remains that there is no national association or group recognized
>as such - like the AMA - that controls, regulates, or supervises massage
>practice here in the United States.
Nor should there be. Massage is an art that is widely dispersed in
terms of style, practice and use. No one organization like the AMTA is
in a position to govern this entire field. The AMTA approach to
massage may describe the most common type of massage work in this
country, but there are plenty of us out there who practice something
very different. As a Tui Na (Chinese clinical massage) practitioner
myself, I do little or no Swedish massage. Despite their claims to
offer a broad umbrella for the massage field, the AMTA knows very
little about what I do nor do their schools teach much about it. A
local AMTA accredited school, for example, offers just one class in
Tui Na, and then only to those that have first learned Swedish
massage.
I was trained at a school accredited by the American Oriental Body
Therapy Association (AOBTA), an organization which does understand
oriental massage styles, and I find that my membership in that
organization has many more benefits for me than the AMTA probably ever
will offer.
This, I think, is a good model for the future of massage practice and
certification in America. No one organization needs to be in control of
this process, and practitioners are better served by organizations
somewhat specialized towards their practice and needs. I do maintain,
however, that all such certification *must be voluntary*. We do not
need monolithic regulation of massage. The AMTA is a good group, but
they do not have what it takes to accomplish the sweeping goals they
have in mind.
Norm.
From lorilewis@aol.com (LoriLewis) Fri Apr 1 08:06:24 EST 1994
Article: 2591 of alt.backrubs
Path: falcon.ccs.uwo.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.ans.net!hp81.prod.aol.net!search01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: lorilewis@aol.com (LoriLewis)
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: A.M.T.A.
Date: 1 Apr 1994 02:07:01 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 16
Sender: news@search01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <2ngh6l$l9@search01.news.aol.com>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: search01.news.aol.com
In article , russest@ampex.com (Steve Russell) writes:
>"...The first pass of the ordinance didn't include 3, 4, or 5 above. It was
only after the ordinance passed and the shit hit the fan that they were
included. BTW, mud is our friend, it brought you out of the woodwork."
That's still not straight! The ordinance was originally passed in 1976. This
bill amended the awful 1976 ordinance, which was cast as a prostitution control
measure. The bill amending the ordinance was passed as written INCLUDING 3,4,
& 5. They were not included in a following action by the City Council after
"the shit hit the fan." They were in there in the first place. I'm making a
point of this to dispell any notion that there was a "conspiracy" to force
people to be an AMTA member in order to get licensed and be able to practice,
which I feel you have been trying to imply.
BTW, mud is wet dirt. :)
From dwheeler@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Diane M Wheeler) Tue Jun 28 18:04:15 EDT 1994
Article: 3123 of alt.backrubs
Path: newshost.uwo.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!psuvax1!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!news.amherst.edu!news.umass.edu!nic.umass.edu!twain.ucs.umass.edu!dwheeler
From: dwheeler@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Diane M Wheeler)
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: Massage school or training
Date: 28 Jun 1994 17:01:07 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <2upl0j$8ch@nic.umass.edu>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: twain.ucs.umass.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>From the two proceeding messages I would like to be the one to clarify
that to practice in CA you do need a license - I believe it is available
in three different levels. The state requirements in MI I am not sure
of, but if the state itself doesn't have a regulation the town/county
ususally does. Massage Therapy is not just giving someone a backrub
although having the ability to do that is a great place to begin. A lot
of people want to do massage work because the money can be very good, but
to be able to do the most good for your client you need the schooling to
go with it. Most courses are about 9 months and range from
$4000-higher. Other courses run two years and you are on campus for the
week. If you are interested in massage, pickup a magazine on the subject
or check the library - magazines can usually be found in most alternative
health book stores or whole food stores. You may also be interested to
know that there are a number of various techniques that are utilized, but
most everyone gets a basic understanding of Swedish Massage as initial
training and is a requirement from the AMTA (American Massage Therapy
Association) where you can also become a member and take a national test
that right now is being used in some states as their requirement and
others it is just another certificate to hang on the wall. Hope this helps.
Diane
From BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NL.NUWC.NAVY.MIL (Jim Baranski) Fri Jul 29 10:10:34 1994
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
From: BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NL.NUWC.NAVY.MIL (Jim Baranski)
Subject: Re: Massage question
Date: Fri Jul 29 10:10:34 1994
In <3175gq$au3@search01.news.aol.com> garyc58971@aol.com writes:
Why do you associate "Legitimate" massage as necessarily being "impersonal"?
Because many people try to legitimize massage by making it 'professional' and
end up making it impersonal.
>
>What would you do if someone came into your office, and said "I want to touch"
,
>that they needed to be able to touch someone else, IE have the active role in
>touching instead of the passive role? How is this need any less valid,
>legitimate, or unprofessional?
>How is this any different from someone coming in and saying that they 'need'
>sex? I don't see the need as any less valid, legitimate, or 'professional'.
You didn't say how you would respond in each of these scenarios. Why Not?
Exactly what is it that you're trying to say by "Well, I guess we just have
some very different ideas on where our social responsabilitites lie."?
Just try telling this to your local governing agencies and see how long you
practice legally.
Well, then that is what needs to be changed.
I admit that were are a social creature. We all have needs. This does not
mean that we can justify prositition (illegal activity) just because
someone needs it.
Making something illegal does not *make* it wrong.
The debate over legalizing prositution is another issue.
Agreed. I will try not to get sidetracked.
I don't necessarily think it is a bad thing. I have seen where in other
countries it seems to work. But again, this is not the issue of
massage/bodywork.
>To me, being professional means offering an honest service, not what that
>service might be. Being professional means not letting my needs or thoughts,
>or feelings, or a bad day get in the way of providing good service. It DOESN"
T
>mean that I need to be impersonal, or that I can't have a personal relationshi
p
>with someone whom I provide, or go to for a 'professional' service.
Again, I think you mistake my definition of "professional".
I don't believe so. I understand what you mean to say. What I am saying is
that 'professional' ends up being impersonal in practice a lot of times.
Untill you can accept that there is a problem, you can't work on a solution.
I agree with most of your definition, except that in any relationship, there
must be some form of bounderies.
I agree. You left out where I said that boundaries and honesty were essential.
Besides the current legal definition, there are also the moral/ethical
responsabilities. I believe it is inappropiate to have sex with your clients.
I agree that there are important ethical considerations in being "intimate"
with clients. However, The current way of handling this is too expensive in
terms of the human factor; too much is being lost y trying to be
'professional'.
Also, there is the issue of being in a position that others look up to you.
Hmmpf! I don't do massage for an ego trip. I don't need or want to be 'looked
up to'.
I may be the first person that this client has ever let get this physically
close to with out having sex. She needs to understand that she can completely
relax her guard, and not be concerned with some horny man trying to get lucky.
This is where the boundaries are necessary. Both people (or at least the
provider) need to be honest and clear about what the massage is about.
You need to be able to put *your* needs on the back shelf, and put your
client's needs formost. You need to know where *your* boundaries are, and if
something is asked for that *you* aren't comfortable with, be able to say 'no,
that's not what we're here for' in a caring, non-judgemental way.
I have seen this abuse TOO MANY TIMES. I have seen men go into the field just
because they thought it might be a great way to get in womens panties. This
infuriates me!!! This does more damage to all of us than you can imagine.
These women often say that they will NEVER get a massage again, and they tell
everyone about their experience.
It's a well known fact in many careers, that people choose work that benifits
themselves. Many psychotherapists enter the field to work out their own
problems. I've had to dissuade female clients as well as men. I had a
*female* friend who was a bodyworker and who was an incest survivor tell me
that 'if you want to be touched, you can get a massage; if you want to touch,
you have to become a massage therapist'.
This only proves my point. If these people had a *legitimate* way to have
their needs for touch fullfilled, then they would not *need* to become massage
therapists, and inflict themselves on unsuspecting clients.
Instead you try to remove any and all possibility of sexuality from the
massage. Well, if you do that, you can't help but make it impersonal.
I think a much better focus would be on boundaries, honesty, and putting the
needs of the client first, while putting your needs aside. If you can do that,
the damaging scenario you present cannot happen, and there need not be any
concern over whether it is sexual, sensual, personal, impersonal, or
professional.
The bounderies I speak of are necessary. People need to know that they are
here for a massage, for touch and nurturing, for easing of their bodies
and minds, or for addressing myofascial/structural problems.
Whatever the case, it must be completely clear to all that this is what we do,
what we are trained to do and what we are allowed to do by our governing
agencies.
As far as I'm concerned, the governing agencies can go perform sex acts with
themselves!
Masturbation, sex acts, voyrourism (sp) and the like are not what we, as
massage/bodywork professionals do. Why is this such a problem for some people
to accept?
What, you think 'sex' isn't "body-work"? :-> Please speak for yourself.
*sigh* You just don't get it.
It's well known psychologically that if a person has a need that is truely a
*need*, it will find an outlet. No matter how you try to dam it up, it will
twist around trying to find an outlet. The problem is that the more it is
blocked, the more that need will become twisted and perverted trying to find an
outlet.
A lot of the *desire* for sex today, stems from a *need* for touch and caring.
The more "legitimate" outlets we can provide for these needs, the better we all
will fare.
(if anyone *truely* cares, I will try to look up references, but only if *you*
are going to search out and *read* the sources; I'm not going to waste my time
to provide references nobody's going to look up!)
If a person wants to have sex for money, why do you need to call it massage?
I don't. Why do you need to refer to it as "illegitimate"?
The other qestion is, "What is Sex?" Or more correctly stated, 'what is
sexual?' For many people, massage is sexual; therefore forbidden. For other
people dancing is sexual. For others: touch, nudity, hugs, kissing or other
intimate embraces. Also forbidden for a lot of people, excepting a government
certified spousal unit, or one Significant Unit in any time period.
If massage is not sex, is it sex if one or both people are nude, or in a sauna
or hot tub? Or if they switch active and passive roles? Or if there are
embraces? IMVHO all of these have the potential for healing. Strictly
speaking, it becomes "sex" when genitals, or "intercourse" is involved.
Why do you think that you can single out *one* act, and make it "legitimate",
and leave the rest 'forbidden'? The status quo isn't working; people are
*starved* for touch and other needs.
As many people have pointed out, many massage techniques are good foreplay.
Vice versa may also be true sometimes. Why do you believe everyone should
limit themselves to AMTA certified 'professional' practices, when there is a
wealth of healing that can be accomplished in other ways?
Some people would say that it's immoral / valueless to have this kind of
physical intimacy without having 'personal' intimacy (eg the whole person, as
in a 'real' 'mating' relationship) I personally believe that the broader the
intimacy of a relationship across it's spectrum, the healthier the relationship
is, however deep.
Then why follow AMTA regulates that result in impersonalization?
(I know, I know; because you don't want to get sued! :-( )
Is that the "honesty" you were speaking of?
Tell me what I've said that has implied dishonesty?
So what if someone has those needs. What if someone has needs to be violent?
Does that mean you let them beat you up?
No, I'm not suggesting that anyone do anything they do not want to do. What I
am suggeting is that you, and the AMTA stop telling everyone else what they can
or should do or not do.
Any psychotherapist can tell you that therapy can be (at least verbally)
violent. There are some therapies which involve taking out anger violently on
a punching bag, which is much healthier for all involved then taking it out on
another human being. A massage can be painfull as well.
Bounderies my friend, are what keeps us civil. All of us have dark little
sides to us. But keeping bounderies is what allows us to live together without
victimizing those smaller than us, or being victomized by those bigger than
us.
I believe that I've been clear that boundaries are of primary importance. I do
hope I don't have to repeat myself. But everyone doesn't have the same
boundaries as you and the AMTA. This type of standardization loses too much of
the healing possibilities of touch.
These 'dark sides' that you mention are quite likely the repressed needs I
spoke of. If there had been better outlets for those needs earlier, perhaps
they would not have developed. After the fact, the question is how can these
'dark sides' best be healed?
I don't think it's helpfull to slap the label "illegitimate" on a therapy
because it could be considered 'intimate' instead of "professional".
I hope this clarifies my position, I also hope that I have not antagonized
you TOO much. ;) I enjoy your perspective.
Thank you for bearing with me. I've certainly gone on long enough...
Jim.
From keg@strathspey.llnl.gov (Keith Grant) Sat Jul 30 14:16:17 1994
From: keg@strathspey.llnl.gov (Keith Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: Massage question
Date: Sat Jul 30 14:16:17 1994
In article <3195pn$spp@search01.news.aol.com>, garyc58971@aol.com
(GaryC58971) writes:
|>
|> I give up. I seem to be the only person on the Internet that thinks it is
|> possible to be balanced both in a "professional" environment, and yet
|> retain the qualities of nurturing and intuitive abilities. I feel like
|> everyone believes that it has to be ALL one way or ALL the other. Either
|> you dismiss technical knowledge for intuitive sensitivities, or you become
|> a sterile robot with no heart or soul.
|>
|> Isn't the idea in life BALANCE? Can't I utilize a knowledge of the
|> physical mechanisms of the body with my natural or developed sense of
|> intuition? Isn't using BOTH aspects of the brain better than functioning
|> from just one?
|>
|> I have said a great deal about the issue of the public few of massage VS
|> sex, yet so many posts respond about how anyone who wants to say "I would
|> like massage to seen as ""legitimate"" in the public eye", is some kind of
|> physician wanna-be. WHY??? In my mind, the two have very little to do
|> with each other.
|>
|> Anyway, I surrender. I know longer wish to bang my figurative head against
|> this cyber wall. You all win.
|>
|> Good Day to You All,
|> Gary (the defeated) ;)
Gary,
Fold up the white flag for right now, it may be a little premature.
You've made some excellent points on wanting to have professional massage
looked at as a legitimate practice, needing to establish clear boundaries
for a professional relationship, and wanting to have a balance with both
technical knowledge and intuitive abilities. Based on your recent postings,
I suspect I have little or no disagreement with your goals or your personal
approach to these issues. We may at times desire to emphasize different
concerns however.
I couldn't agree more with you on the need to establish clear boundaries. A
relationship should be either professional or sexual, but not both at the
same (or nearly the same) time. First off, legally and culturally sex for
explicit payment don't mix to the betterment of either party. Whether or
not that is true of all cultures doesn't really matter. Fighting this is
basically a waste of time and detracts from positive changes in nonsexual
touch norms that more widespread acceptance of massage could produce.
Secondly, their is an implicit power/vulnerability difference between the
practioner and the client. This isn't just a problem for massage, it has
gotten a number of medical doctors and psychologists into hot water.
Intimate relationships among well-balanced equals are tricky enough to
manage. Add a difference in power and an opportunity for psychological
transference and you are asking for problems. You may be capable of no
wrong one day and capable of no right several days or weeks later. Add to
this the well-known observation that victims of emotional, physical, and
sexual abuse oftern have damaged abilities to make and enforce healthy
boundaries. Helping those that often have no prior positive experiences of
touch learn to reinhabit their bodies and establish boundaries is healing.
Not maintaining boundaries is agravating the previous damage.
I also have no problem with having both technical and intuitive skills. For
example, one of the better exercises I've read on developing palpation
skills and sensitivity is in Greeman's Principles of Manual Medicine. What
I do argue against is the use of too externally focused analyses of massage
job skills that lead to certification criteria that ignore or deemphasize
training or native abilities in awareness, communication, and movement
skills. I also am against teaching and evaluation modes that ignore the
variations in learning styles between those with different aptitudes. I
also am in strong disagreement with education criteria that place arbitrary
restrictions on the path of education used to obtain a level of competency.
What is not emphasized is as important as what is emphasized. If you
emphasize technical abilities in massage education without continuing to
emphasize the less measurable abilities (because you feel they are already
in place) then you've set up a program to filter out those who are better
at intuitve solutions then technical ones. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT I DON'T
CONSIDER TECHNICAL SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE TO BE AN EXTREMELY VALUABLE TOOL.
It does mean that I believe that technical skills should be just one tool
in the toolbox. It also means that experiential training and flexible
evaluation methods should be used to impart and test skill where needed.
I've saved the issue of legitimacy until last, because that is undoubtedly
the most difficult. It's not a matter of simple skills or abilities or of
acting with integrity but includes our whole social and cultural
perspective. Yes, legitimate massage was hurt by the use of massage as a
front and code-word for prostitution. I don't feel that that's the whole
story however. Robin (lrobin@interaccess.com) was right about our cultural
suspician of getting massaged simply because it's emotionally healing and
reduces physical stress. Other western cultures exist that have little
trouble with spending time at a spa or shutting down a whole town while
everyone goes on a month's vacation. We might consider such healing
activities to be lazy and unproductive. While some cultures consider touch
to be so essential that whole villages touch and care for children in
common, we outlaw all touch in day-care centers to protect against the
potential of abuse accusations. While some cultures know intuitively about
what community is all about, we need books to remind and encourage us to
create community (my enivitable reference is at the end).
As well as being an atmospheric physicist and an instructor of sports and
deep tissue massage (I'm not all fuzzy and intuitive), I'm also a
folk-dancer. In particular. Scottish country dancing and Scandinavian
couple dancing. Part of what I like about dancing is that dancers form a
microcommunity where touch and interaction is normal rather than
suspicious. Women dancers have told me how wonderful it is to be in a group
of people where touch and eye-contact (even flirtatious eye contact) are
accepted ends-in-themselves, without the danger or liklihood that they will
be misconstrued. Perhaps, over time, massage can help to widen the social
context and the number of people for whom this is true. Perhaps by keeping
technical skills as tools while remembering that the most healing
principles are simple touch and emotional presence, massage can become
legitimate while improving our whole cultural perspective on touch and
play.
In any case Gary, fold up the white flag. There are too few of us at this
point to waste any.
Shaffer, Carolyn, 1943-
Creating community anywhere : finding support and connection in a fragmented
world / Carolyn R. Shaffer and Kristin Anundsen ; foreword by M. Scott Peck.
New York, NY : Putnam Pub. Group, c1993. xvii, 334 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
LC CALL NUMBER: HM131 .S437 1993
SUBJECTS:
Community.
Community development.
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
I I Common sense and a sense of humor are the I
I Keith Eric Grant I same thing, moving at different speeds. A I
I keg@strathspey.llnl.gov I sense of humor is just common sense, dancing. I
I I (or perhaps dancing is just common sense) I
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
I For certain it is, that any ideas expressed above are of my own humble I
I opinion and bear nary a relation to the policies or positions of LLNL I
I or of any agency or contractor of the U.S. Government. I
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From ara@dogmatix.inmos.co.uk (Adrian Adams) Fri Oct 21 14:14:47 EDT 1994
Article: 3837 of alt.backrubs
Path: newshost.uwo.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!inmos-root!dogmatix!ara
From: ara@dogmatix.inmos.co.uk (Adrian Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: European herbal 'ban' (long)
Date: 21 Oct 1994 07:30:30 GMT
Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK
Lines: 80
Sender: ara@dogmatix (Adrian Adams)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <387qmm$nk7@lion.inmos.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dogmatix
>From THE GUARDIAN (UK)
Thursday October 20 1994
Reproduced without permission
Herbal 'ban' fear over EU licence rule
Chris Mihill
Medical Correspondent
Herbal medicines are under threat because of a European Union
directive that will have the effect of banning products like ginseng,
herbalists warned yesterday.
Practitioners of herbal medicine could be driven out of business and
patients may be unable to buy herbal treatments.
There has been concern for a year that EU harmonization over medical
products could be extended to herbal products, at present exempt from
the need for a medical licence.
It had been assumed, however, that the exemption would continue, but
herbalists have been told by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) that
regulations need to be in place by January 1, requiring herbal products
to obtain a licence similar to that of pharmaceutical drugs.
Acquiring a licence for drugs requires huge documentation, and the
charges alone for assessing a new product by the MCA are about #100,000
(pounds sterling). The cost of the clinical trials needed to support the
documentation can run into millions.
Herbalists say that because suppliers cannot afford to go through this
procedure for every herb or natural remedy they produce, they will simply
go out of business.
Michael McIntyre, past president of the National Institute of Medical
Herbalists and now chairman pf the Herbal Practitioner Alliance, a
pressure group to fight the Brussels directive, said: "Of course I am
worried about my business, but I am more worried about my patients.
"We can remain in business as herbal practitioners, but if suppliers are
required to obtain a licence for all the items they sell we will not be
able to get the products. There is no money in herbs. The route to
obtain a medicine licence is so expensive suppliers would never be able
to recoup it. Products like ginseng will require a licence.
"There could be an enormous number of people who will not be able to
get the medicines which help them feel well.
"I am booked to the hilt and this is true of most of my colleagues. I
see 60 patients a week. Patients will be harmed if this goes through."
The institute represents 400 medical herbalists, but there are believed
to be about 1,000 in the country, many using traditional Chinese
remedies.
The same EU rules will apply to the large natural remedy industries in
Germany and Holland, but in both countries the regulatory authorities
have made it clear they will not be implemented.
A spokesman for the Department of Health said it was hopes a compromise
could be reached.
"We have met the herbalists and we have listened to their concerns. It
is a complex issue. There's no question of shelves being cleared of
ginseng on New Year's Day."
If they successfully implement restrictions on herbal remedies there is
no reason why this shouldn't be extended to all alternative health
products. Including aromatherapy products.
I would advise anyone resident in a European Union member state to write
to their MEP (Minister of the European Parliament) and ask them to
oppose this legislation. If you live in Britain you can find out who
your local MEP is by looking your Thompson Directory 'Community
Services' section. Also, talk to any suppliers or other users and ask
them to write too. I would be interested in any feedback you get.
=Adrian
From w2jc@ritz.mordor.com Sun Oct 23 08:23:14 EDT 1994
Article: 3848 of alt.backrubs
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Path: newshost.uwo.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!spcuna!ritz!w2jc
From: w2jc@ritz.mordor.com (Jim Cooper)
Subject: Chiropractic Regulations
Sender: w2jc@ritz.mordor.com (Jim Cooper)
Organization: Mordor International BBS
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 18:05:15 GMT
Message-ID:
Lines: 318
Reply-To: w2jc@ritz.mordor.com
====== FORWARDED MESSAGE of possible interest to this group ========
From: j.paff1@genie.geis.com
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 94 05:25:00 UTC
Subject: Chiropractic Regulations
Every so often, I hear a person wonder aloud how unelected
bureaucrats in state administrative agencies get so much power over
our lives. The object of this post (admittedly long--I apologize)
is to demonstrate how such is done.
At issue is a proposal by the State Board of Chiropractic
Examiners, a Board within the Department of Law and Public Safety's
Division of Consumer Affairs. In short, the Board is irked that
some New Jersey chiropractors are using treatment methods that the
Board considers to be "unsubstantiated." It is the purpose of this
rule, therefore, to prohibit these "unsubstantiated" procedures
resulting in a state mandated orthodoxy in the field of
chiropractic care.
While the stated purpose of the rule is to "protect the public
health, safety and welfare," it is in reality nothing more than yet
another governmental fiat that limits our choices in health care.
This limitation of choice is touted by the Board as being in our
benefit, as the rule will "aid the public in making more informed
decisions" by "reduc[ing] confusion" that currently exists. After
all, we private sector simpletons are easily confused, so we need
to have our choices made for us by our betters in the government
sector.
Following is the complete text of the rule proposal that was
published in the October 3, 1994 issue of the New Jersey Register
(26 N.J.R. 3932). According to law, members of the public have the
right to submit written comments to the Board, and the Board must
publish its response to each comment it receives in a future issue
of the Register. So, in other words, if you submit a comment, your
name, your comment and the Boards response thereto will appear in
offical print. Isn't that fun?
Comments are due by November 2, 1994. Send them to:
Kay McCormack, Executive Director
State Board of Chiropractic Examiners
P.O. Box 45004
Newark, NJ 07101
Note in your letter that you are responding to Proposal Number: PRN
1994-531.
If you decide to send in a comment, please post it here on the list
for all of us to see. If comments are posted, I will take
responsibility for posting the Board's responses to those comments.
Finally, if you feel that this is worthwhile post, let me know and
I will post more proposed rules periodically.
In Liberty,
John
The agency proposal follows:
Summary
The State Board of Chiropractic Examiners is reproposing an
amendment to N.J.A.C. 13:44E-1.1, Scope of practice, which sets
forth not only the methodology but also the diagnostic and
analytical procedures that fall within the scope of chiropractic
care. The proposed amendments were originally proposed on
September 7, 1993 as PRN 1993-499 at 25 N.J.R. 3931(b). Based not
only on public comments but also on renewed discussion among its
members, the Board has decided to change the original proposal in
the following ways.
The previous references that appeared throughout the proposal
regarding whether a "theory, modality or procedure" is
unsubstantiated have been deleted in favor of references to a
"diagnostic or therapeutic system or method" because of concerns
expressed by the public that regulation of "theory" would make the
scope of this rule overly broad. Another change involves the
deletion of the option whereby the Board might have otherwise
deemed "other factors" relevant in determining whether a system or
method is unsubstantiated; the Board agreed to delete this
provision because it is redundant, Moreover, the Board agreed to
delete that option because according to revised subsection (h)
licensees who engage in a system or method that the Board deems
unsubstantiated but which is not expressly prohibited in subsection
(g) will no longer be subject to license suspension or revocation,
nor to monetary penalties aside from costs associated with
receiving a cease-and-desist order and the refunding of fees
obtained from the utilization of an unsubstantiated system or
method until such time as the Board has adopted an amendment to
subsection (g) that does expressly prohibit the system or method in
question unless the other conditions set forth in subsection (h)
are relevant.
In addition, the Board has decided to revise subsection (g) as
follows: to revise and expand, for the sake of clarity, the
provision that references "networking" or "network chiropractic";
to provide for an exception whereby craniopathy or craniology is
deemed to be within the scope of chiropractic provided that
craniopathy or craniology is part of the sacro-occipital technique;
and to include hair analysis and meningeal massage as among those
systems or methods that the Board deems to be unsubstantiated.
Finally, new subsection (i) sets forth the procedure whereby a
licensee may seek an advisory ruling as to whether the Board deems
a system or method to be unsubstantiated.
Aside from these specific changes, the reproposal reflects the
original proposal in that it consists of three new subsections,
(f), (g) and (h), that will further define the scope of
chiropractic care by citing certain systems or methods that lie
beyond the scope of chiropractic care in order to protect the
public from unsubstantiated practices that might otherwise be
"marketed" under the guise of chiropractic care. Thus the intent
of the proposed amendments is to counteract the surge in the use of
unsubstantiated chiropractic systems or methods that misrepresent
the profession to the public and thereby threaten its credibility
and damage its ability to serve the public,
Subsection (f) would prohibit licensees from representing or
utilizing an unsubstantiated system or method as constituting
chiropractic care. Subsection (f) further outlines some specific
factors that the Board may take into consideration in determining
whether or not a system or method employed by a licensee is
unsubstantiated and thereby exceeds the chiropractic scope of
practice. Those factors include whether the system or method is an
integrated part of the academic curriculum of accredited
chiropractic colleges; whether it is validated, or is as of yet too
speculative in nature; and whether it is accepted by a responsible
and substantial segment of the chiropractic community. In essence,
the threshold that any given system or method needs to satisfy is
that it must have gained either widespread academic, scientific or
chiropractic community acceptance.
Subsection (g) addresses systems and methods specifically
identified as excluded from the scope of chiropractic care. This
list of unsubstantiated services includes, but is not limited to,
"networking." While subject to additions by the Board, the list
will in its present form give both the public and licensees a clear
sense of chiropractic systems and methods excluded from the scope
of chiropractic care.
Subsection (h) states that even if a system or method is not
specifically identified in subsection (g), the Board may decide
that it is unsubstantiated and order the refund of fees earned by
its utilization and issue a cease-and-desist order that will remain
in effect until such time as the Board adopts an amendment to
subsection (g) that expressly prohibits the system or method in
question. The subsection provides for two exceptions, however, in
that a licensee utilizing an unsubstantiated system or method that
endangers the public health, safety or welfare or who has
previously been issued a cease and desist order for the
unsubstantiated system or method at issue may be found to have
committed a violation of N.J.S.A. 45:1-21 by having utilized such
a system or method or by not complying with the provisions of
proposed subsections (f) and (g).
Social Impact
Given the recent increase in unsubstantiated services being offered
to the public by some licensees, the reproposed amendment will
undoubtedly have a major social impact. Patients and the public at
large are likely to experience the impact in the following two
ways: through a severe if not complete reduction in licensees who
offer the unsubstantiated services because they know they would
otherwise be operating outside the scope of chiropractic care, and
a corresponding decrease in confusion as to what services
constitute chiropractic care. The decrease in confusion should
result because licensees will no longer be permitted either to
represent or to bill for unsubstantiated chiropractic services,
conduct that inevitably attempts to confuse those services with
legitimate chiropractic care.
The reduced confusion should aid the public to make more informed
decisions as to whether to pay an individual offering services that
are not within the scope of chiropractic care.
Economic Impact
The economic impact of the reproposed amendment will be felt by
those members of the profession who are currently offering or
engaging in unsubstantiated chiropractic services and who will not
be able to do so under the reproposed amendment to the scope of
chiropractic care. In instances where an unsubstantiated system or
method has not been expressly prohibited but is found to be
unsubstantiated at an administrative hearing, licensees may need to
refund fees earned by the utilization of that unsubstantiated
system or method and to bear the costs associated with receiving a
cease-and-desist order.
For its part, the public will also be affected by the reproposed
amendment. The public stands to benefit from greater clarity
regarding the scope of chiropractic care because such clarity
should eliminate payments for unsubstantiated services, thereby
enabling insurance companies to realize savings that may be passed
on to consumers. In particular, consumers may in some instances
benefit from the return of fees earned by a licensee engaged in the
utilization of a system or method deemed to be unsubstantiated
pursuant to an administrative hearing.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
If, for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, N.J.S.A.
52:14B-16 et seq., chiropractors are deemed "small businesses"
within the meaning of the statute, the following statement is
applicable: The proposed amendment, which governs and defines
systems and methods that are unsubstantiated and cannot be offered
or represented either as chiropractic care or as the basis of
reimbursement, will apply to all of the approximately 3,000 current
licensees of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. No reporting or
recordkeeping is required, nor does the amendment require initial
capital costs or the retention of professional services or any
other costs of compliance. The only compliance requirement is
adherence to the proposed amendment. The Board considers the
amendment to be reasonable and to be the minimum necessary for the
protection of the public health, safety and welfare. For that
reason, the proposed amendment must be uniformly applied to all
licenses without differentiation as to size of practice.
Full text of the proposed amendment follows (additions indicated in
boldface thus):
13:44E-1.1 Scope of practice
(a)-(e) (No change.)
START BOLDFACE
(f) A licensee in the course of the practice of chiropractic shall
not utilize, represent or hold out the use of, or advertise in any
manner any unsubstantiated diagnostic or therapeutic system or
method Including, but not limited to, any such examination, test,
substance, device or procedure. In making the determination that
a system or method is unsubstantiated, the Board shall consider
factors including, but not limited to, the following
1. Whether the system or method is taught as part of the core
curriculum or in a regular course for credit in a school
approved by the Board pursuant to N.J.S.A. 45:9-41.6. For
the purpose of this rule, the fact that a system or method is
or has been offered In a one-time not for credit or not
regularly scheduled seminar, lecture or program shall not
suffice. The system or method must be integrated Into the
academic curriculum of an accredited chiropractic college.
2. Whether the system or method is accepted by a responsible and
substantial segment of the chiropractic community, or
3. Whether the system or method or Its claimed effects are
speculative or experimental. "Claimed effects" may include
claims made by or attributable to a chiropractor by his or her
words or action.
(g) All following systems and methods, Including any diagnostic,
analytical and treatment procedures related thereto, are found to
be unsubstantiated:
1. "Networking" or 'network chiropractic" when combined with
unsubstantiated or speculative claimed effects regarding
psychological or emotional conditions or "clearouts";
2. Craniopathy or craniology, except when part of the sacro-
occipital technique;
3. Arm-mentoring/surrogate testing;
4. Any technique which purports to utilize procedures involving
the patient's electromagnetic field, including but not limited
to "harmonic therapy";
5. Applied kinesiology as applied to the visceral organs or for
nutritional analysis;
6. Hair analysis; and
7. Meningeal massage.
(h) In addition to the systems and methods specified In (g) above,
the Board may determine in an administrative hearing conducted In
accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S. 52:14B-1
et seq, and the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C.
1:1, that a system or method Is unsubstantiated and therefore not
within the scope of chiropractic. In the event the Board
determines that a system or method not expressly prohibited in (g)
above is unsubstantiated, the Board may impose disciplinary
sanctions limited to a cease and desist order, costs, and the
ordering of refunds of fees obtained from the utilization of an
unsubstantiated system or method. The Board shall not be so
limited, however, In any such proceeding where:
1. All unsubstantiated system or method poses an imminent danger
to the public health, safety and welfare including, but not
limited to, physical danger to patients or defrauding of
patients or third party payors; or
2. The licensee has been previously ordered to cease and desist
with respect to the particular unsubstantiated system or
method in issue.
(i) A licensee may, at any time, seek an advisory ruling from the
B"W as to whether a system or method will be deemed unsubstantiated
within the meaning of this section. A request for such ruling
should be submitted in writing to the Board and shall include all
data, information and materials supporting such system or method.
The Board, upon receipt of such a request, may advise the licensee
to refrain from offering or performing the system or method until
the Board renders its ruling. Nothing in this subsection shall
prohibit the Board from acting under (b) above if it so deems
necessary.
END BOLDFACE
end post
From Eric Yoxtheimer Wed Dec 14 08:06:33 EST 1994
Article: 4715 of alt.backrubs
Path: newshost.uwo.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!nwnexus!cleese.nas.com!sos.sos.net!yoxy
From: Eric Yoxtheimer
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: Massage study in North America
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 18:05:34 -0800
Organization: Network Access Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID:
References: <3cck6b$j1i@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <3ccri3$ngd@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sos.sos.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <3ccri3$ngd@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>
On 10 Dec 1994, J. Blustein wrote:
> Canadian MTs are regulated by their province, not the feds.
> The last time I heard only BC and Ontario had regulations. Ontario
> demands about 2000 hours of training.
I believe this is if they want to use "massage" in their advertising
(at least in BC). I went to school with a fellow from Vancouver at
Seattle Massage School here in the states. He's now licensed in
Washington state, but in Canada he can't advertise or call himself a
"massage" anything. He's a "Bodyworker".
If that helps.
-Eric Yoxtheimer, LMP
From Brian_Carter@pop.com (Brian Carter) Mon Jan 9 07:38:12 EST 1995
Article: 4919 of alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: Shiatsu & Thai Massage
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 95 22:49:20 PST
Message-ID: <0021452E.fc@pop.com>
X-FirstClass: 0x59F8 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0010CA48 0x0000
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Path: newshost.uwo.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcomsv!netcomsv!popcorn!Brian_Carter
From: Brian_Carter@pop.com (Brian Carter)
Organization: POP.COM
X-HoloGate: 1.1 []
Lines: 56
In his recent post, a person identifying himself/herself as gittano@aol.com
writes:
> L.A. AREA: Will give oriental massage to women only (tired of being hit-on
> by men) for either massage exchange or sliding scale (very reasonable
> rates). You can come to my home or I can come to you. Studied massage in
> Thailand for 2 years while teaching English. Send email with way to
> contact.
If you were a legitimate, licensed massage technician in the State of California
and knew anything about the law, Mr. Gittano, you would know that it is
*illegal* in the State of California to deny massage technician services to any
person on the basis of their race, creed, color, religion, or gender, no matter
now "inconvenient" it may seem to you. (California Government Code, paragraphs
51030 through 51034.) It's one of the few California State-level laws that
govern massage technicians.
Aside from the fact that your advertisement on the internet is a pain in the
ass, it is also illegal since you are advertising only to provide massage
services for women. If you don't know how to deal with men who "hit" on you,
then you probably don't know how to deal with women who "hit" on you, either.
For a legitimate massage technician of either gender, both situations are
identical and must be handled in exactly the same way. (Yes, I know, men who
hit on women *are* more dangerous to the women. However, in most cases, that's
only true if the woman has chosen to work somewhere other than a licensed
massage establishment that is equipped with alarm response.)
Frankly, any woman who thinks she might want to be massaged by a man who *only*
wants to massage women, should obtain that male technician's license number and
then call the city/county where it was issued, to make sure that it's valid and
current and that the city/county verifies that such person has had his criminal
background checked, before ever she would allow him to touch her - for money or
even for free.
In the State of California, every person who desires to provide massage services
for compensation, must have a massage technician license issued by either the
city or county in California where they work. (Rules for each city and county
vary, unfortunately.) The point is that, in the City of Los Angeles, where Mr.
Gittano purports to live/work, it is *illegal* for a massage technician to
provide massage services to *any* client from the technician's own home.
Mr. Gittano, if you want to talk about the forms of massage you learned in
Thailand, we'd love to hear about it - really. If you want to trade
professional notes on techniques that you think are great, we'd love to discuss
them with you. However, it is obvious that you haven't bothered to go to the
trouble to find out about legal licensing in the City or County of Los Angeles,
so that probably means you aren't professionally insured, either. So, please -
*please* - don't solicit for clients on the internet, okay? Thanks.
Brian M. Carter, B.S., C.M.T.
Usui Shiki Ryoho Reiki Master
California State-authorized Instructor (Cert #105502, expires 01/97)
in Massage and Massage Therapy Subjects
L.A. County License #0394-116598I1
City of Pasadena License #52-058755
--
From Brian_Carter@pop.com (Brian Carter) Wed Jan 11 07:53:54 EST 1995
Article: 4932 of alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: Massage Exchange
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 95 14:09:49 PST
Message-ID: <002165B7.fc@pop.com>
X-FirstClass: 0x59F8 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0010CA48 0x0000
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Path: newshost.uwo.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcomsv!netcomsv!popcorn!Brian_Carter
From: Brian_Carter@pop.com (Brian Carter)
To: catman@atlasbbs.org.pop.com
Organization: POP.COM
X-HoloGate: 1.1 []
Lines: 100
Dear Friend of Massage:
Since you failed to use your real name in your recent posting, your request for
massage exchange in the San Jose, CA, area is suspect. To help you to find
suitable massage exchange "partners", the following information may prove to be
helpful. Please respond to the newsgroup for best results.
1. Are you qualified to give massage? Since this newsgroup is set up to
promote the exchange of ideas related to ethical massage (and, by extension, all
legitimate forms of bodywork), your requested massage "exchange" implies that
you are qualified to give ethical massage. If this is true, where did you go to
school? When did you graduate, or are you still a student? If you are a
student, when do you expect to graduate?
2. Are you licensed to give massage? In the State of California, all persons
desiring to do massage for compensation (an "exchange" is considered
"compensation" in this case) must be licensed as a massage technician in the
city/county where they do massage. Further, California Government Code,
sections 51030 through 51034, specifies that all cities/counties so licensing a
person as a massage technicians shall verify that such person is free from
convictions for a list of sex crimes and crimes of violence spelled out in the
Code.
In addition, cities and counties routinely check to make sure that the candidate
for massage technician license is also free from crimes relating to property
(burglary, etc.) and fraud (forgery, etc.) so as to be of "good moral
character." This is important if you are going to let a "total stranger" into
your home, no matter how compassionate and "sensitive" they may seem.
So, then, if you *have* a license, it's a good idea to state (a) what
city/county has issued it, and (b) what your license number is. Then your
prospective massage "partner" can verify it and know that you are not just some
rapist trying to hit on women (or men, for that matter.)
3. What type of massage do you perform? Be specific, if you can. For example,
"deep tissue massage" is not very helpful. OTOH, Rolfing, Hellerwork, or
Myofascial Release Technique is very specific, and tells your "partner" what
s/he can expect from a massage session with you. "Shiatsu massage" is likewise
not as helpful as it might seem. A better and more helpful description might be
"Zen Shiatsu on a mat", "Amma Shiatsu in a massage chair/on a table."
4. Do you own your own table or, in the case of shiatsu, a special mat or
chair? Most professionals do, but not always. By saying that you own a
table/chair, you lead your prospective "partners" to believe that you will do
massage on something other than a bare floor or, worse, a bed, which, of course,
would no longer be*ethical* massage, since no licensed massage technician will
perform massages in a bed (except in the rare case of geriatric clients who are
bed-fast.) Alternately, if you do *not* have a table, chair, or mat, state this
so your prospective "partners" will know that they are going to have to provide
one.
5. Are you insured for the professional work you do? State law does not
require that massage technicians carry liability insurance, but those who work
in chiropractor's offices or other professional settings generally do. A
massage "exchange", though technically devoid of a money, is considered "massage
for compensation". This is important because many malpractice insurance
policies *do not cover* massage that is given for free. So, then, if you have
insurance, through whom is your policy issued? If you have *no* such insurance,
state this also, so your prospective "partners" will know that they will be
exchanging massage with someone who is uninsured.
6. Shall I bring *my* forms or shall we use yours? In *all* cases where a
licensed massage technician performs massage for compensation, a health record
of the person being worked on should be made. Why? If anything happens during
the massage, from a heart attack to an epileptic seizure, or even death, your
record will support that you followed the "standard of care" for massage
technicians. Then, if the estate of the deceased should charge you with the
wrongful death of their relative, you will have a signed record from that person
describing to you their ailments (if any) prior to the start of the massage.
(Based on the ailments described by the person, you will *know*, if you are a
massage technician, what the contraindications for massage are and politely
decline those with such ailments.) Besides, it's just common sense to want to
know about recent surgeries, broken bones, allergies, etc., before you begin to
work on someone. If you have forms, state this. If not, again, your
prospective "partner" needs to know that s/he will have to bring theirs. If you
do *not* use health forms, you are AUTOMATICALLY assumed to *not* be following
the proper "standard of care" for massage technicians (at least in the State of
California and, I would imagine, just about everywhere else.)
Well, that just about sums up what to look for in a massage "exchange". I know
what you're thinking: "Wow, it just seems like a lot of work to get a massage
exchange these days, doesn't it."
My reply: Yes it does. And our efforts to maintain the hard-won image of
massage a profession rather than following methods that make it look like a
"cottage industry" will continue to contribute to the public's awareness of the
importance of staying healthy by adding and keeping ethical, professional
massage in their health maintenance routine.
Thanks for listening,
Brian M. Carter, B.S., C.M.T.
Usui Shiki Ryoho Reiki Master
California State-authorized Instructor (Cert #105502, expires 01/97)
in Massage and Massage Therapy Subjects
L.A. County License #0394-116598I1
City of Pasadena License #52-058755
--
From Brian_Carter@pop.com (Brian Carter) Wed Jan 18 08:43:50 EST 1995
Article: 4997 of alt.backrubs
Subject: Re: massage exchange legal without licenses?
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 95 19:08:42 PST
Message-ID: <00222D02.fc@pop.com>
X-FirstClass: 0x59F8 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0010CA48 0x0000
Newsgroups: alt.backrubs
Path: newshost.uwo.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgiblab!pacbell.com!amdahl.com!amd!netcomsv!popcorn!Brian_Carter
From: Brian_Carter@pop.com (Brian Carter)
Organization: POP.COM
X-HoloGate: 1.1 (.)
Lines: 171
Jeff:
Thank you for an excellent post that does, indeed, advance the discussion of
massage exchanges. First of all, I should like to commend your excellent
scholarship on researching the laws of quite a few states. It was *not* my
intention, I assure you, to claim that massage ÒexchangesÓ are forbidden by law.
As you can see from your excellent research, to do so would have been foolish
since few states prohibit ÒamateurÓ massage practitioners from engaging in
ethical massage in which no money exchanges hands.
As to another of my statements regarding massage exchanges, I was not attempting
to ÒcodifyÓ either tax or labor laws regarding massage, but, rather, to point
out to *professional* massage technicians/therapists that massage ÒexchangesÓ
are not free massage when performed by professionals on one another.
This is *good* news in an insurance sense, since almost all U.S. malpractice
insurance applies only to massages for which the technician receives
compensation. The U.S. Internal Revenue Code is clear that, when massage
services are exchanged between massage professionals, that the exchange is
considered ÒbarterÓ and not free massage. This is important to professionals
because it establishes that, even during so-called massage ÒexchangesÓ, their
insurance coverage is in full force, something about which amateurs care little,
but professionals care a lot.
Jeff, you mention the State of California Business and Professions Code,
Division 2. This is the part of California State law that regulates doctors,
dentists, nurses, chiropractors, physical therapists (who do massage or direct
it to be done in conjunction with rehabilitative therapies) and other medical
professionals, and is of limited interest to massage technicians, although
everything you said about it is correct regarding massage that is used in
conjunction with these Òhealing artsÓ.
Rather, the *business* of massage (as distinguished from the *practice* of
massage) is regulated in a limited way at the state level in California through
the Government Code, Sections 51030 through 51034. Why the Government Code?
Because the Government Code empowers cities and counties in California to
legislate and regulate the business (but not the practice) of massage. Such
items as how the criminal backgrounds of massage technicians must be checked,
general adherence to health codes, necessity of technician to cover private
parts while administering massage, etc., are mentioned in these sections, with
further authorization for the cities and counties to enact ordinances, collect
fees, etc., in order to regulate the business of massage and preserve good moral
order. Of note to professional massage technicians is Government Code Section
51034, which, since 1988, makes it a misdemeanor for a massage technician to
*refuse* to massage a prospective client solely on the basis of religion, race,
place of origin, or sex.
The *practice* of massage in California is regulated through the California
Education Code, Sections 94310 and 94311, which empowers the California State
Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education to approve schools to
teach massage in California, and to issue Certificates of Authorization for
Service to instructors who show sufficient education and experience to teach
massage and massage therapy subjects. It also mandates that an approved course
of massage instruction shall last not less than 100 hours, that not less than 30
hours shall consist of anatomy and physiology, ethics and applicable business
law, with the balance of 70 hours consisting of hands-on practice. Courses can
be longer than a total of 100 hours in length, but not shorter if they are to
lead to a Certificate of Completion as a ÒMassage Technician.Ó This is the
minimum entry-level in California. In lots of cities and many of the 58
counties in California, this is all that is required in order for someone to
begin practicing massage as a massage technician. Other cities and counties
require more. (Cost is about $600 to $1,200, depending on where you go to
obtain your certificate. One school even includes a free massage table at
graduation.)
Then you say:
> This stands to reason as well. Not everything people do for me, not
> every human kindness, is compensatory. When someone holds a door open
> for me, I do not declare it on my income tax.
As well you should not do so. Please see my above comments on insurance
coverage as it applies to professional massage technicians. That was the only
point I was making. Then you say:
> While Brian's exclusivity is understandable - massage professionals
> have to work to distinguish themselves in the public eye from whores - I
> think the profession is better served by bringing in the public to the
> extent it can be.
For professional massage practitioners to creatively develop ways of bringing in
the public as *clients* is an excellent idea, if this is what you are
suggesting. Inviting them to participate as amateur practitioners can be
dangerous and unwieldy, especially for *their* intended clients.
As a point of personal disagreement, I believe that the *best* introduction to
the world of massage is *not* through some amateur running his/her hands all
over your body in an unintelligent, groping manner, nor by some zealous Shiatsu
would-be practitioner dislocating shoulder bones while applying lethal force to
your upper back. Rather, the best introduction to the world of massage is a
professional introduction. WouldnÕt you agree?
Then you Òtake a swipeÓ at me, saying:
> Demanding a license number from people who post here is
> less like professional conduct than like a child in a treehouse demanding
> the secret password. Professional massage should take joy in inviting the
> public to the party, like adults, rather than take spiteful pleasure in
> deciding who not to invite, like schoolgirls.
Ouch! IÕm not suggesting *anyone* should be excluded from the world of massage
as a client, if the *practitioner* is someone of professional standing and
experience. I suggest demanding a license from a total stranger as an excellent
way of establishing that the person with whom one is dealing is a person with
professional experience and training who has gone to the trouble to have his/her
background investigated by the police and FBI. In California (and every other
U.S. state where state-level licensure is the rule), it is a *requirement* that
this be done before a massage practitioner license is issued. In point of fact,
it is your *first* line of defense against would-be attackers masquerading as
massage "partners."
The background check/licensing procedure provides the public with as good a
protection as is available, to be spared unnecessary physical contact with
rapists, murders, burglars, Jeffrey DahmerÕs, and others, who eventually will
find their way to this newsgroup and do their dastardly deeds, without deference
to your cute ÒschoolgirlsÓ illustration.
Massage ÒexchangesÓ, if started by professional massage practitioners on this
newsgroup at one time in history as some allege, were *never* - I repeat,
*never* - intended to include amateurs. This is a point I shall post repeatedly
(well, maybe once more during the next year): Think about it: Why would
professional massage practitioners, ever, in the history of this newsgroup, have
posted a massage exchange list so that non-professionals could exchange massages
among themselves? It would be antithetical to the purpose of the profession if
massage professionals believed that just anyone could give a safe, effective,
non-harmful massage to someone else just by reading a book, no matter how
assiduously it was studied. (I know, there are *lots* of books out there and
lots of folks who want to try the latest technique they have read about.)
Nevertheless, my only point was that, though the massage ÒexchangeÓ list exists
and will continue to exist into the forseeable future, that it was *not* started
by the persons for whom this group was originally intended, and it was *never*
intended to be a function of the newsgroup to put non-professionals in touch
with one another for any purpose contrary to the professional ethics or
standards of massage and massage therapy. That's all. Period. Nothing more,
nothing less.
Some argue with me on this point solely on the basis of their belief in an
amateurÕs ability to learn one or more massage techniques - they err mightily in
thinking that *this* is my objection - and will no d | | |
