massage and bodywork professionals

a community of practitioners

I hope this gets everyone's attention, and I don't give a rip if anyone replies or not. I am posting this separately from the previous discussions on here that have deteriorated into the most vile insulting and mudslinging bunch of crap I have ever seen in my life.

 

It is distressing to me that massage therapists, researchers in the field, and anyone else associated with our profession in any way stoop to this kind of behavior. Not only is it not a productive discussion, it is starting to sound like a bunch of politicians on tv with their insulting of each other's credentials, standards, and abilities.

 

I am not interested in shame and blame, so who started it and who said what is irrelevant. I urge you all to remember that we are ALL in this profession because we have a desire to help people through the awesome power of touch, and that is what it is about.

 

We don't have to agree. We can all agree to disagree. The personal attacks, the character attacks, the arguing over which country does it better, is ridiculous, petty, and childish. This is not the first time this has happened. It is the main reason I avoid this site most of the time.

 

I am no better, or no worse than anyone else, and everybody is entitled to an opinion. That's what forums are meant for, so that people with differing opinions have a place to discuss those, but so much of what has gone on here is not a civil discussion. When I see people that I know to be hard-working, caring people, and people that I know to be brilliant minds and hard-working as well get into these mudslinging insulting arguments on here, I personally find that to be a bad reflection of what we are supposed to be about.

 

I don't have to be bad in order for you to be good. You don't have to be a failure just so someone else can be a success. One country who does things differently is not better or worse, they are just different. People get caught up in national pride, and that's okay, but it does not have to deteriorate into what some of these discussions have deteriorated into. Someone makes a comment, someone takes it the wrong way, or out of context, and it just goes downhill from there.

 

When you're writing like this, you can't hear people's tone of voice, you can't see their body language, and what might be civil if we were all in a room together comes off as a bunch of superior b*******, and one's just as guilty as the other. When anyone has anything intelligent to say, someone else seizes upon that and uses it as an excuse for the next round of arguing.

 

I wish everyone of you peace and prosperity, regardless of where you are from, what you do, or how you do it. We are all equal by virtue of the fact that we are all human and it's too bad that people are fighting like a pack of junkyard dogs instead of having a civil disagreement. I can't participate in it and I won't.

 

Views: 1000

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

To be honest, Alexei, if claiming not to be subject to the laws of physics is not laying claims to miracles, and if "wait a few generations" to where claims "may" be proven is not an exhortation to have faith, I don't know what is.

 

But I agree with you that we shouldn't make the entrance requirements too high for people who don't want to do medically-oriented massage. I like British Columbia's tiered system that way--people can choose the path they want to take.

 

And under such a system, I could practice the massage I do without hearing all this "go be a PT" judgment about it. Win-win-win, I'd say.

 

I really don't see how we can continue to paper over these differences.


Alexei Levine said:

I'm not actually advocating for faith-based methods.  What I'm saying is don't throw the baby out with the bath water, that is don't raise the entrance requirements for the profession so high that it will deter all those people who only want to do wellness massage, at least to start their career, from becoming massage therapists.

Greetings, Mr. Fritz,

I started this discussion in an attempt to get people to stick to civil disagreement instead of slamming each other with personal insults and meanness. It has enjoyed its own evolution.

 

The following post is what you were asked to weigh in on. Nice to meet you on my discussion!

 

Ravensara, respectfully, you are wrong about PT's knowing less than MT's about massage.  Of course the scope of practice of PT is much broader than that of MT, as it includes everything that MT's do, plus the active side of therapies.  (I'm a PT and an LMT).  Because of this extremely broad scope of practice there are many PT's who specialize in the active or analytical side of things, and aren't interested in cultivating their manual skills, so that leads to some confusion about what PT's are doing these days.  In the 90's it may have been true that PT's were less well versed in their manual skills and knowledge, but it's no longer true.  And even then at all the cranio-sacral and MFR programs PT's seemed to outnumber MT's.  I'm not certain about that perhaps Walt Fritz could weigh in on that point.  These days go to any program or seminar in any type of advanced bodywork or massage, and PT's are present in large numbers.  And in the USA, PT's know a lot more about neurorehabilitation than MT's.  PT's routinely do this kind of work in all the major rehab hospitals in the USA, while it is extremely rare to find an MT doing that kind of work here.  Importantly, in the USA, PT's have more legal rights in general to perform this type of work in the clinical setting, and more rights to insurance reimbursement.  PT's and Chiropracters also have large and powerful political machines that will fight to the last drop of blood to resist giving up any of their monopolistic rights to this type of work to anyone else.  That is why I'm encouraging MT's not to throw away all the stuff that differentiates them from PT's. As Kris Kelley stated these professions can be viewed as vehicles to get us where we want to go, or do the kind of work we want to do.  I agree, and that is why I encourage people who want to do that kind of neurorehab to become PT's rather than try to change the entire profession of MT into a pale imitation of PT.

      Please don't get angry and start flaming me for saying this.  And everybody else please don't pile on me, I'm just reporting what I see from my perspective as a PT and MT in the USA.  I have deep respect for all the great work done by the amazingly intelligent and capable MT's I've had the pleasure of meeting on here :)  And I like, and value research :)  And Ravensara, you seem like a great guy.  I think of this forum as a discussion amongst friends and colleagues supporting each other and the profession, not an antagonistic debate.  Personally, I've embraced MT even more than PT.




Ravensara Travillian said:

Because we know more about massage than PTs do, we can work with the clients to tailor the massage to their needs. It's not just executing a prescribed routine.

 

One of my clients in the Refugee Clinic was a soldier on the losing side of a civil war in his country. Despite his best efforts, the other faction succeeded in breaking away and establishing their own nation. He came into the clinic complaining that half of his body was missing.

 

 

 

Walt Fritz, PT said:

Alexei ask me to chime in (as a PT working in more of an MT world), and I never mind giving my 2 cents (usually I dump out my pocket of change), but can someone catch me up on what this thread is all about? The first post referenced another thread, but I did not see it named. Anyopne want to give me the Cliff Notes version?

 

Thanks,.

Walt

Hey Ravensara, we are in complete agreement then, as I never claimed not to be subject to the laws of physics, or advised anyone to hold off on advocating for evidence based practice.  There are a lot of voices on here, and it's hard to keep it all separate, but that wasn't me.  I did point out that quantum entanglement has been shown to violate the first law of thermodynamics and the inverse square rule, but not in the service of advocating for energy work, just because I think it's interesting.  I meant it when I said that I view this forum as a conversation between friends and colleagues not a debate.  I like how we can talk about these things and how they might underlie what we do, in a way that laypeople might not appreciate.  Everyone seems to favor a tiered approach, it's sad that the AMTA lobbies so hard against it in the USA.

Ravensara Travillian said:

To be honest, Alexei, if claiming not to be subject to the laws of physics is not laying claims to miracles, and if "wait a few generations" to where claims "may" be proven is not an exhortation to have faith, I don't know what is.

 

But I agree with you that we shouldn't make the entrance requirements too high for people who don't want to do medically-oriented massage. I like British Columbia's tiered system that way--people can choose the path they want to take.

 

And under such a system, I could practice the massage I do without hearing all this "go be a PT" judgment about it. Win-win-win, I'd say.

 

I really don't see how we can continue to paper over these differences.


Alexei Levine said:

I'm not actually advocating for faith-based methods.  What I'm saying is don't throw the baby out with the bath water, that is don't raise the entrance requirements for the profession so high that it will deter all those people who only want to do wellness massage, at least to start their career, from becoming massage therapists.

If I was asked if MT's know more about massage than PT's, I can only answer for myself. PT school training in massage was pathetic. Effleurage and pettrisage (sp?) and that was it. If the questions refers to strictly massage, I would say MT's get the nod. If we are crossing boundaries into other modalities, then it gets muddied. I can speak for MFR. I know MT's who do the woprk mush better than many or the PT's I know and vice versa. Background and training guides and leads me in a direction in treatment and teaching that an MT may not follow. Not better, not worse, just different. I'm strongly influenced by orthopedics and structure. I do energy work well and use it constantly, just don't speak about it that often.

 

When it comes to neurorehab and traditional orthopedic rehab, you are asking the wrong person. I think much of what the average PT does is largely a waste of time/money. Did that, don't want to do it anymore. I see the patients that traditional PT did not work with and most felt like they wasted their time.

 

I do have the benefit of insurance reimbursement for my patients, though they have to work to get it. (I do not accept in-network-type insurance. They pay me at time of service, just like most of you)

 

Forum site such as this one feel  more comfortable to me as I work like most of you.

 

Not sure if that contributed to anything except space...

Hi, Alexei--

 

I meant it when I said that I view this forum as a conversation between friends and colleagues not a debate. 

 

Certainly, I feel that I can discuss this with you in a friendly way. And Marilyn and I may have our differences over Reiki (which reminds me, I need to send her that article), but we can discuss them in a civil way, and she is curious to know more about how things work. I find that very friendly and collegial as well.

 

But in this thread, someone has said that EBM-oriented MTs are simplistic thinkers who want to force everyone into one way of thinking. Also upstream, Lee said that MTs interested in working in medical settings should become PTs, and flounced out, proclaiming the death of civility, when I defended my work. In other threads, I've been accused of having a "conflict of interest" just for the fact of advocating EBM, and of "harming massage".

 

None of that is either friendly or collegial. Or, for that matter, true.

 

Of course, Matthew and Vlad are voices of calm and reason in the discussion here. But I regard discussing disagreements civilly with you and Marilyn as the exception to the general rule; in my experience, most of the discussion of EBM is to trash it and the people who advocate it. Look at what terms Bodhi and Christopher are spoken in around here, for example. I totally understand why people say they avoid the discussions here.

 

I like how we can talk about these things and how they might underlie what we do, in a way that laypeople might not appreciate.  Everyone seems to favor a tiered approach, it's sad that the AMTA lobbies so hard against it in the USA.

 

Yes, I think that's a (less-than-perfect, of course) solution that is better than trying to stay under the same umbrella where I have to defend my work to people are so contemptuous of it. I think we'll eventually decide to go that route because we'll have to, but the delay in getting there by fighting those efforts will just make it much more expensive, difficult, and contentious than it had to be.


Alexei Levine said:

Hey Ravensara, we are in complete agreement then, as I never claimed not to be subject to the laws of physics, or advised anyone to hold off on advocating for evidence based practice.  There are a lot of voices on here, and it's hard to keep it all separate, but that wasn't me.  I did point out that quantum entanglement has been shown to violate the first law of thermodynamics and the inverse square rule, but not in the service of advocating for energy work, just because I think it's interesting.  I meant it when I said that I view this forum as a conversation between friends and colleagues not a debate.  I like how we can talk about these things and how they might underlie what we do, in a way that laypeople might not appreciate.  Everyone seems to favor a tiered approach, it's sad that the AMTA lobbies so hard against it in the USA.

Ravensara Travillian said:

To be honest, Alexei, if claiming not to be subject to the laws of physics is not laying claims to miracles, and if "wait a few generations" to where claims "may" be proven is not an exhortation to have faith, I don't know what is.

 

But I agree with you that we shouldn't make the entrance requirements too high for people who don't want to do medically-oriented massage. I like British Columbia's tiered system that way--people can choose the path they want to take.

 

And under such a system, I could practice the massage I do without hearing all this "go be a PT" judgment about it. Win-win-win, I'd say.

 

I really don't see how we can continue to paper over these differences.


Alexei Levine said:

I'm not actually advocating for faith-based methods.  What I'm saying is don't throw the baby out with the bath water, that is don't raise the entrance requirements for the profession so high that it will deter all those people who only want to do wellness massage, at least to start their career, from becoming massage therapists.

I admit it has been a very long time since I've engaged in discussions of this nature.  Even though I missed all the excitement of the other thread this one has been an interesting read.  ...even see a few folks I recognize from long ago engagements and discussions. **waves**

I'm curious what is it about the current state of affairs that prevents the folks who want evidenced based research from doing the research they wish to have done?  Who is stopping you from doing this? Surely MT's aren't preventing research from being done?  Is it that MT's aren't embracing it like some want them to do?

IMHO, I see no reason for a tiered system.  At this point you can do whatever you wish to do without restraint.  And while that may scare a lot of people for fear of practitioners running amok the truth is that the majority of MT's are respectable folks doing really wonderful work regardless of whether they can explain how and why it works. 

As someone already said, I don't claim a whole lot other than "you'll feel a lot better when we're done."  I offer clinical/therapeutic massage and address all types of issues -- ranging from rehabilitation, sports massage, relaxation and yes, even energy work when requested.  What I do is effective which brings clients back to see me.  The one thing I don't offer is spa work but considering my state license requires 24 hours of CEU's to renew I can't state categorically that I wouldn't consider learning hot stones or salt scrubs at some point down the line.

When folks start talking about tiers I wonder where I would fit in at this point?  Are the tiers based solely on education hours?  CEU's?  Years in practice?  Or taking someone's idea of a practical or special certification?  Do I have to choose one tier over the other?  Does being in a tier suddenly make me unable to practice work I had been doing up until the tier became involved?  So many questions...   

For folks talking about whether we are an industry or a profession I see us as a profession overall. I do agree that if there are changes to be made I'd love to see some specifics with regards to standards for teachers and especially for those offering CEU's. 

I've been practicing for 19 years. I take CEU's, read articles and do my best to stay current with new information.  In my experience the folks who don't stay current or who are out there making false claims tend not to stay in business long and no, I don't worry about them.  Truth is there are folks that want the MT with the copper pyramid under her table just as there are folks who don't.  Our professional umbrella is big enough that both types of clients and their needs can be addressed.  My biggest worry are new graduates being released from intense programs which encourage them to think their new found knowledge and skill takes the place of experience in the field.  In terms of harm I see that as the greatest danger to our profession. 

I appreciate the dialogue as well as meeting folks I don't know yet.

I like your approach.

Do we really need to create boxes for a profession (I readily profess my love of massage/bodywork) which allows both the scientific evidence base with the metaphysical world of little known? How many are harmed by such a wide open system that encourages each to explore where it takes them? If we were to become the same as other healthcare fields and be absorbed within the others, what would become of our boundless ability to  match the Therapist and Client? We make people feel better. We reach people when others can't. We fill the gaps. Our presence improves many lives. For me that is enough proof. To me evidence based massage, will eventually, mean knowing which modality and even which pressure or stroke is most effective in a clinical situation. This would broaden the use of massage in medical and perhaps psychological settings but it wont lessen the effect of touch.To me the connection we develop with our clients is more like the old general practitioner who made home visits and knew our lives than the insurance based specialists today.


Lets keep the diversity and the profession open. Do not fear the chaos as it contains infinite possibilities.

I don't see a broken system but I do see fellow practitioners who are the matrix for people seeking to improve their lives.

Kathy, I also do not see the need for tiers. I do not see how tiers benefit the client. Search engines provide more information on which MT I would be comfortable with at this point in time. If it is simply about politics then let it not restrict those of us that simply want to be. Those of us who are politically inclined can certainly find a place within the matrix flux without creating barriers for others.

Kathy says "My biggest worry are new graduates being released from intense programs which encourage them to think their new found knowledge and skill takes the place of experience in the field." It is a scary thought.

Kathy Mackay said:

I admit it has been a very long time since I've engaged in discussions of this nature.  Even though I missed all the excitement of the other thread this one has been an interesting read.  ...even see a few folks I recognize from long ago engagements and discussions. **waves**

I'm curious what is it about the current state of affairs that prevents the folks who want evidenced based research from doing the research they wish to have done?  Who is stopping you from doing this? Surely MT's aren't preventing research from being done?  Is it that MT's aren't embracing it like some want them to do?

IMHO, I see no reason for a tiered system.  At this point you can do whatever you wish to do without restraint.  And while that may scare a lot of people for fear of practitioners running amok the truth is that the majority of MT's are respectable folks doing really wonderful work regardless of whether they can explain how and why it works. 

As someone already said, I don't claim a whole lot other than "you'll feel a lot better when we're done."  I offer clinical/therapeutic massage and address all types of issues -- ranging from rehabilitation, sports massage, relaxation and yes, even energy work when requested.  What I do is effective which brings clients back to see me.  The one thing I don't offer is spa work but considering my state license requires 24 hours of CEU's to renew I can't state categorically that I wouldn't consider learning hot stones or salt scrubs at some point down the line.

When folks start talking about tiers I wonder where I would fit in at this point?  Are the tiers based solely on education hours?  CEU's?  Years in practice?  Or taking someone's idea of a practical or special certification?  Do I have to choose one tier over the other?  Does being in a tier suddenly make me unable to practice work I had been doing up until the tier became involved?  So many questions...   

For folks talking about whether we are an industry or a profession I see us as a profession overall. I do agree that if there are changes to be made I'd love to see some specifics with regards to standards for teachers and especially for those offering CEU's. 

I've been practicing for 19 years. I take CEU's, read articles and do my best to stay current with new information.  In my experience the folks who don't stay current or who are out there making false claims tend not to stay in business long and no, I don't worry about them.  Truth is there are folks that want the MT with the copper pyramid under her table just as there are folks who don't.  Our professional umbrella is big enough that both types of clients and their needs can be addressed.  My biggest worry are new graduates being released from intense programs which encourage them to think their new found knowledge and skill takes the place of experience in the field.  In terms of harm I see that as the greatest danger to our profession. 

I appreciate the dialogue as well as meeting folks I don't know yet.

I agree Daniel. First, let me say I was a supporter initially for the new EBP effort to work in massage. It sounded great. But then I looked at it with an open mind and saw what is really happening with this idea.

 

A Tier System will only divide us, further. And will, culminate with the stripping of the majority of the therapists from the title Licensed Massage Therapist and even the word "Massage" itself, just as it happened in Canada.

 

With Massage, we were masseurs and masseuses. Then the word "Therapist" was added. We liked it because it "cleaned up" our image. We accepted it. Many warned this would cause division and now their words are proving true.

 

Now therapy is being touted as only medical or Evidence Based Practices only and they are even saying it is "unethical" to be doing anything else.

 

The next step is to create tiers. Call the advanced (more educationed) Massage Therapist, "Massage Therapist" and the lesser trained "Spa Therapists". There goes the word "MASSAGE" from your title. Researchers are some of the strongest supporters of the tier system.

 

Folks when Massage becomes just what can be proven, with todays technology, we have missed so much. What if this approach was taken 100 years ago, based on that technology? We may not even have massage now, if we had.  What has been proven EBP since then? MUCH??? It is not time to bannish, quash, ignore, bemoan or belittle any modality. The researchers have not finished their work.

 

Even though EBP therapists admit there are less of them wanting this, they are trying to create this divide. There is room for EBP as well, but they should not be dictating to or bemoaning others that have established their practices before the EBP crowd decided to be. I see this, as just another way to accomplish the tier system... convince many and divide. Sad!

For everyone's information:

The current (Mar 7 ) issue of TIME magazine is featuring articles about the state of pain management, including an article about  alternative therapies. It is very interesting!

Hi Lee

 please can you do a link to this article, as am having probs locating it.

 

thanks

Lee Edelberg said:

For everyone's information:

The current (Mar 7 ) issue of TIME magazine is featuring articles about the state of pain management, including an article about  alternative therapies. It is very interesting!

Stephen,

 

It may be that you can't read it online without a subscription (I have a paper copy).  But you can read the feature story and a brief essay by Dr. Oz:

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601110307,00.html

 

 

 

 

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2057269,00.html is where you will find the piece on pain... Julie was right awhile ago. The subject line should be changed. My delete key is mostly used on this thread because of it getting so far off track. Welcome aboard Ms Mackay. Good to "see" you.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2022   Created by ABMP.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service