a community of practitioners

Minimal requirements strawman

I think that it might make sense to look at the problem from a different approach. One useful technique is to step up a “strawman” as a concrete example to critique.

To do this I figured that we start with a common entry level position that is reasonable well defined and that is practiced without other modalities. I think something that fits this bill is chair massage. It is popular many people and many people do exclusively chair work. It also is practices without mixing other modalities.

For this exercise I am presuming that the person has a high school degree or equivalents so we are only interested in postsecondary education. For example, a graduate is presumed to have some math, science and language skills.

I am only listing skills that will affect the person’s ability to do the job. For example it might be nice to know the history of massage but not knowing it will not affect performance. Also while it might be nice to have a better science background, the high school science is adequate for this type of task.

The follow is a list of the skills needed and some of the skills only require partial mastery: 455, 478, 480 512, 513, 514, 528, 529, 532, 541, 551 564 583, 584, 586, 599, 605, 612, 620, 626, 630, 631, 664, 676, 700, 704 706, 711 714, 716, 718, 720, 712, 729, 731, 735, 737, 738, 741, 743, 746, 752, 761, 764, 766, 775, 777, 795, 796, 819, 820, 831, 839, 846, 849, 850, 852, 853, 879, 900, 906, 922, 924, 990, 1000, 1029, 1034, 1036, 1047, 1071

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Carl W. Brown on October 29, 2009 at 1:38pm

People with 100 hours don’t have the confidence to do stupid things that hurt people. It is teaching people advanced techniques when they have not have the years of experience working on bodies that hurts clients. It is schools creating sorcerers apprentices that get clients hurt. It is introducing them to advanced modalities and not insuring that they are competent to use them becasue there are no standards. I even had one class introduce me to chiropractic high velocity low amplitude spinal manipulation and nothing about arterial dissection. Just heaping on more training does not decrease harm it actually increases it.

Carl W. Brown said:

Mike, according to the ABMP I pay $67 of my dues for professional liability for $2,000,00 of coverage with just 100 hours of training. This tells me the experts know this to be a safe profession and they are willing to bet money on it.

When I was a computer programmer I could not afford the professional liability insurance and the general liability (slip & fall) insurance cost me $500 for $500,000.

If someone will build a standard based on proven harm I will buy into it. But I don’t see that the BOK addresses the issue of harm at all. 99% of the KSAs have nothing to do with harm and the rest have no standards. How much education is need to make sure that you wash your hands and disinfect your stones?

Mike Hinkle said:
Rev, I understand. You were able to go years with minimal standards and those were glorious days, I'm sure . But those standards today are not enough to protect the public and the states. But because of state rights and responsibilities, they have to organize. As my Dad tells me everyday, "Mike, nothing stays the same forever. Don't fear the future, embrace it!"

The Rev said:
Mike Hinkle said:
No wonder CA is a mess guys, this is not scientific. I am thinking, I also think, do they need to know the muscles? States need to set rules and therapists need to meet them. I have never heard of a professions guidelines being organized in this manner.

I am beginning to think we may not have much in common... Did you ever work in an environment with no state licensing? Most no longer can have that experience.

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on October 29, 2009 at 1:53pm

This much I agree with: It is teaching people advanced techniques when they have not have the ~~years of~~ experience working on bodies that hurts clients. It is introducing them to advanced modalities and not insuring that they are competent to use them becasue there are no standards.

And in the end, he saw the light! Finally, Carl. Did you get it?

Carl W. Brown said:

People with 100 hours don’t have the confidence to do stupid things that hurt people. It is teaching people advanced techniques when they have not have the years of experience working on bodies that hurts clients. It is schools creating sorcerers apprentices that get clients hurt. It is introducing them to advanced modalities and not insuring that they are competent to use them becasue there are no standards. I even had one class introduce me to chiropractic high velocity low amplitude spinal manipulation and nothing about arterial dissection. Just heaping on more training does not decrease harm it actually increases it.

Carl W. Brown said:
Mike, according to the ABMP I pay $67 of my dues for professional liability for $2,000,00 of coverage with just 100 hours of training. This tells me the experts know this to be a safe profession and they are willing to bet money on it.

When I was a computer programmer I could not afford the professional liability insurance and the general liability (slip & fall) insurance cost me $500 for $500,000.

If someone will build a standard based on proven harm I will buy into it. But I don’t see that the BOK addresses the issue of harm at all. 99% of the KSAs have nothing to do with harm and the rest have no standards. How much education is need to make sure that you wash your hands and disinfect your stones?

Mike Hinkle said:
Rev, I understand. You were able to go years with minimal standards and those were glorious days, I'm sure . But those standards today are not enough to protect the public and the states. But because of state rights and responsibilities, they have to organize. As my Dad tells me everyday, "Mike, nothing stays the same forever. Don't fear the future, embrace it!"

The Rev said:
Mike Hinkle said:
No wonder CA is a mess guys, this is not scientific. I am thinking, I also think, do they need to know the muscles? States need to set rules and therapists need to meet them. I have never heard of a professions guidelines being organized in this manner.

I am beginning to think we may not have much in common... Did you ever work in an environment with no state licensing? Most no longer can have that experience.

Permalink Reply by Carl W. Brown on October 29, 2009 at 1:56pm

Darcy, change is inevitable but when we see things that are changing in the wrong way we should either fight the change or better you make the change positive. Should we let global warming happen? Should we let health care continue to get more and more out of hand?

I think that setting meaningful standards will improve the quality of education as well as making it cost effective. I also think it will aid innovation because it will be clearer exactly what needs legal protection and what does not. I believe that a valid BOK will shed light on the issues so that it will take much of the politics out of massage as well as improve the public image.

As long as we do not know the real answers there will be manipulating the uncertainties to meet political goals. When we know with objective certainty what the real standards are to practice are, much of this controversy will go away. When I hear 100, 250, 500 750, 1000 hours I know we are all guessing and not getting anywhere because hours are not the real issue, competency and quality is.

Darcy Neibaur BS LMT NCTMB said:

Change is inevitable and always progress for the greatest number. It has been proven to me time and time again that Change is always for the best for everyone involved. We might as well accept it as it is going to happen whether we like it or not. Mike you are right to follow your Dad's advice.

Permalink Reply by Darcy Neibaur on October 29, 2009 at 2:03pm

What are you guys afraid of in California? That you will have to go back to school and receive more hours? I am under the impression that that is the under lying FEAR. FUTURE EVENTS APPEARING REAL. FEAR is all in the mind and not a reality. I find this all so interesting.

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on October 29, 2009 at 2:09pm

Glad you cited two areas that do need pro-active measures. Not allowing things to remain as they are, is a good idea. "Options" will abound. As you just said we need research and study to prove your theories. Objective certainty is not scientific. But with your objective certainty you will still solve this competency and quality issue, right?

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on October 29, 2009 at 2:14pm

The issue of confidence also is lame. So an over confident, not qualified instructor shows an eager, excited student a move that is not covered in his scope, which the student hasn't even seen yet and goes home to help the lady down the street. (Sounds like it could happen to a person trained 100 hours to me, confident or not!)

Carl W. Brown said:

People with 100 hours don’t have the confidence to do stupid things that hurt people. It is teaching people advanced techniques when they have not have the years of experience working on bodies that hurts clients. It is schools creating sorcerers apprentices that get clients hurt. It is introducing them to advanced modalities and not insuring that they are competent to use them becasue there are no standards. I even had one class introduce me to chiropractic high velocity low amplitude spinal manipulation and nothing about arterial dissection. Just heaping on more training does not decrease harm it actually increases it.

Carl W. Brown said:
Mike, according to the ABMP I pay $67 of my dues for professional liability for $2,000,00 of coverage with just 100 hours of training. This tells me the experts know this to be a safe profession and they are willing to bet money on it.

When I was a computer programmer I could not afford the professional liability insurance and the general liability (slip & fall) insurance cost me $500 for $500,000.

If someone will build a standard based on proven harm I will buy into it. But I don’t see that the BOK addresses the issue of harm at all. 99% of the KSAs have nothing to do with harm and the rest have no standards. How much education is need to make sure that you wash your hands and disinfect your stones?

Mike Hinkle said:
Rev, I understand. You were able to go years with minimal standards and those were glorious days, I'm sure . But those standards today are not enough to protect the public and the states. But because of state rights and responsibilities, they have to organize. As my Dad tells me everyday, "Mike, nothing stays the same forever. Don't fear the future, embrace it!"

The Rev said:
Mike Hinkle said:
No wonder CA is a mess guys, this is not scientific. I am thinking, I also think, do they need to know the muscles? States need to set rules and therapists need to meet them. I have never heard of a professions guidelines being organized in this manner.

I am beginning to think we may not have much in common... Did you ever work in an environment with no state licensing? Most no longer can have that experience.

Permalink Reply by Carl W. Brown on October 29, 2009 at 2:45pm

Darcy, my massage school training was not only a waste of time and money as I either has the training or I don’t use the training I received. But the worst part was that the Swedish and deep tissue training had to be unlearned. It took me over three years to get the massage school training out of my mind so that I could continue to progress.

Sometimes skills build on others and sometimes what is good for one thing is wrong for another. The problem with the current standards is that they have nothing to do with reality because no one has actually correlated the requirements with the quality of massage. The NCE and MBLEx are nothing but tests with meaningless standards. Passing them tells the world that you can pass the test. Attending massage school for x number of hours says nothing other than you can spend the time and money.

Doing something stupid is bad. Adding to the stupidity just make it worse. I believe that proper standards will help everyone but I am afraid that there are people who don’t want real standards because they won’t like what the standards say. Real standards are about cost effectiveness not setting artificially high barriers to entry into the profession or forcing arbitrary standards.

Darcy Neibaur BS LMT NCTMB said:

What are you guys afraid of in California? That you will have to go back to school and receive more hours? I am under the impression that that is the under lying FEAR. FUTURE EVENTS APPEARING REAL. FEAR is all in the mind and not a reality. I find this all so interesting.

Permalink Reply by The Rev on October 29, 2009 at 2:49pm

Darcy,

Have you ever been in an unlicensed environment? I, speaking for myself, witnessed the falling of one state after another in the path of the Amta juggernaut. I had a lot to fear. By the time they could get something in CA, the Amta had to settle for the voluntary scam they are currently putting together. If you have no history, you have nothing to fear for not knowing a difference.

Sincerely,
Your (by choice not requirement) 1000 hour HBT&HE passer of the NCE,
ULC Minister, former PYE and PLA, that learned all he had to know about
massage in the 1st 100 hours,

Rev Rob the Russian Rubber

Darcy Neibaur BS LMT NCTMB said:

What are you guys afraid of in California? That you will have to go back to school and receive more hours? I am under the impression that that is the under lying FEAR. FUTURE EVENTS APPEARING REAL. FEAR is all in the mind and not a reality. I find this all so interesting.

Permalink Reply by Darcy Neibaur on October 29, 2009 at 3:02pm

I have never been in an unlicensed environment.

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on October 29, 2009 at 3:03pm

Carl, why are we in the middle of your strawman argument, discussing the BOK. Is the strawman growing or burning? I thought you were more organized.

Permalink Reply by Carl W. Brown on October 29, 2009 at 3:12pm

Darcy, a good example of mutual exclusivity of training is I used to do internationalization where I helped people adapt computer programs to different cultures and writing systems. Much of my work involved the Japanese language and culture because it is so different. Here we are risk takers, poor planners and very inventive partially, I believe, because we need to be inventive to get us out of the jambs we get ourselves into. There they are careful and while we lose interest once we think we know how to solve the problem they start to get interested. They are fanatics about quality and we only have a passing interest.

Ultimately you cannot think both ways and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In fact I found that the culture strengths were also its weaknesses. If we force all bodywork into one mold we will eliminate diversity not improve quality. Once we set real standards we will also see when they are applicable and when we need different standards. If you trained in my work you like I would find that you could not do passable Swedish work anymore.

Swedish improves with body awareness but in my work I have to divorce myself from participating. In fact participating can do me harm where with you it protects you from injury. You work is dynamic and mine is static. You cannot do well in both worlds. Objectivity will bring out exactly how the standards apply or don’t apply and how differences in modalities will affect quality of work.

Darcy Neibaur BS LMT NCTMB said:

What are you guys afraid of in California? That you will have to go back to school and receive more hours? I am under the impression that that is the under lying FEAR. FUTURE EVENTS APPEARING REAL. FEAR is all in the mind and not a reality. I find this all so interesting.

Permalink Reply by Carl W. Brown on October 29, 2009 at 3:17pm

You are right.

Mike Hinkle said:

Carl, why are we in the middle of your strawman argument, discussing the BOK. Is the strawman growing or burning? I thought you were more organized.