massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Are there any legislative updates in your state that you'd like to share with the group?
Views: 231
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin Clark on
-
Applicable News/Links:
Vermont - The Office of Professional Regulation recommends that Massage Therapists not be subject to professional regulation in the State of Vermont.
http://www.massageprofessionals.com/group/vtmassage/forum/topics/op...
New Hampshire - House Bill 446, which among other things seeks to repeal the statute that regulates massage therapy.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/m_billtext.aspx?billn... -
-
Permalink Reply by Diedre Seeley on
-
Looks like NH may follow Vermont's lead. Would benefit massage therapists if they do.
Kevin Clark said:Applicable News/Links:
Vermont - The Office of Professional Regulation recommends that Massage Therapists not be subject to professional regulation in the State of Vermont.
http://www.massageprofessionals.com/group/vtmassage/forum/topics/op...
New Hampshire - House Bill 446, which among other things seeks to repeal the statute that regulates massage therapy.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/m_billtext.aspx?billn... -
-
-
I am curious how taking away training requirements for LMT's in NH is going to benefit MT's? Considering that the trend in the field is we are becoming relied upon for more medical benefits, then simple relaxation, how is taking away a training requirement going to help this trend continue?
-
-
-
Lots of people have lots of questions about this House Bill. A couple interesting links:
"Bill could change N.H. to 'Live Free and Die' state"
"NH bill to repeal regulation/authority to license MT"
Michael Huber said:I am curious how taking away training requirements for LMT's in NH is going to benefit MT's? Considering that the trend in the field is we are becoming relied upon for more medical benefits, then simple relaxation, how is taking away a training requirement going to help this trend continue? -
-
-
Thanks for the Links, though I have yet to see any valid reason for looking to repeal the Law, as what actual benefit this would give the profession.
-
-
-
Why? is the big question. It will be incumbent upon the legislators to explain their reasoning at the public hearing on February 22.
Michael Huber said:
Thanks for the Links, though I have yet to see any valid reason for looking to repeal the Law, as what actual benefit this would give the profession. -
-
-
My point here is that massage licensing does not necessarily benefit massage therapists. It benefits schools, testing agencies, associations (dues/insurance). It doesn't benefit the profession -- wish it did, but there is no evidence that licensing enhances the image of massage.
-
-
-
Lets forget about image for a second and look at client care. Without state licensing, anyone can become a Massage Therapist. A receptionist can decide to become a massage therapist because their significant other said they gave good massages, set up shop and start charging with no idea where endangerment sites are. Because no one told her about hygiene, she starts to help spread disease by trapping germs underneath their long nails and then working on the next client.
Sex offenders can become massage therapists because no state board is making sure they do not get into the profession. The market will most likely be flooded by people, that even with the best of intentions, have no clue what they are doing which brings us back to image as prostitutes will be able to call themselves massage therapists again.
Chiropractors and Dr's will most likely stop referring because they will have trouble finding anyone qualified to help their clients, or at the very least, a lot less qualified people. Without licensing, sex offenders/prostitutes being able to call themselves Massage Therapists we will become strongly associated with the industry doing wonders for our image.
I have no argument that schools, testing agencies, associations and even states make money off of licensure. Schools gain money so they can provide, hopefully, qualified instructors and needed training. Testing agencies help weed out those who are not qualified and agencies get money so they can provide a support network for the profession.
Maybe I am missing something, if so please feel free to let me know.
-
-
-
Micheal,
Okay, let's address your sex offender/prostitute comment first. I used to live in New York City -- NY has some of the strictest massage licensing laws in the country. Does it stop prostitution? No. Just open the VILLAGE VOICE and you will see tons of "massage" ads (not the kind that self-respecting MTs practice). So licensing does not stop that. Sex offenders? Doctors are licensed... and we all know of at least one instance where a doctor was prosecuted for sexual assault.
Chiropractors and doctors will continue to refer to MTs -- they will find good ones. Good ones will find them.
And testing agencies weeding out poor therapists? I know far too many massage school grads that have passed a WRITTEN TEST and are licensed, that have no business being in the field. "Proper education" or testing -- particularly written testing -- does not guarantee a good therapist. Sorry.
Michael, as an NCBTMB provider, so I would benefit from these laws, but I do not believe in licensing. I've seen it abused in too many places.
Michael Huber said:Lets forget about image for a second and look at client care. Without state licensing, anyone can become a Massage Therapist. A receptionist can decide to become a massage therapist because their significant other said they gave good massages, set up shop and start charging with no idea where endangerment sites are. Because no one told her about hygiene, she starts to help spread disease by trapping germs underneath their long nails and then working on the next client.
Sex offenders can become massage therapists because no state board is making sure they do not get into the profession. The market will most likely be flooded by people, that even with the best of intentions, have no clue what they are doing which brings us back to image as prostitutes will be able to call themselves massage therapists again.
Chiropractors and Dr's will most likely stop referring because they will have trouble finding anyone qualified to help their clients, or at the very least, a lot less qualified people. Without licensing, sex offenders/prostitutes being able to call themselves Massage Therapists we will become strongly associated with the industry doing wonders for our image.
I have no argument that schools, testing agencies, associations and even states make money off of licensure. Schools gain money so they can provide, hopefully, qualified instructors and needed training. Testing agencies help weed out those who are not qualified and agencies get money so they can provide a support network for the profession.
Maybe I am missing something, if so please feel free to let me know.
-
-
-
Diedre,
I enjoy these discussions. I think I understand your and Michael's arguments. However, unless I missed something, you haven't really said much about how repealing massage laws would benefit massage therapists.
Other than a potential cost savings (no license fees, no continuing education requirements, etc.), which for most of us would be relatively small, how would repealing NH's massage rules and regulations benefit massage therapists and the massage therapy profession?
Kevin
Diedre Seeley said:Looks like NH may follow Vermont's lead. Would benefit massage therapists if they do. -
-
-
There are always going to bad Dr's just like there will always be bad Massage Therapists, saying there is no point to licensing because there are bad ones, to me gets a bit silly. Licensing can help limit the bad ones and I would much rather have a Massage Therapist work on me that I know passed a licensure exam, and thus knows about origin/insertion, ethics etc then one who has not taken one. Yes there are and will be Massage therapists who will take a licensure exam and will turn/be rotten but I think this number is extremly small in comparison to what it would be without licensure exams/licensing.
Recent laws in CT and NH made it illegal to call yourself a Massage therapist or say you do massage unless you have a license and the result has been the phone book lost a tone of ad's for escorts. Soo right now weeding the sex industry out of massage is moving in a positive direction, at least in CT and NH, as I do not practice in NY I cannot speak of those laws. I'm not too sure how a Medical Doctor or Chiropractor is going to find anyone good to refer to when no training is required, as its training that gives the Massage Therapist the foundation to get to that level of medical proficiency. I too am curious how you think taking away licensing will benefit therapists as maybe I am missing a large point here.
-
-
-
I think it benefits those that have trained in other modalities and only want to practice what they've learned, rather than spend the money to go to massage school just to be licensed. For example, in NY State students of massage schools can say they practice shiatsu -- however they only have 100 hours of that study. Graduates of another institute, with more than 600 hours of shiatsu, can't practice it. That's absurd.
I also think that it benefits therapists by the free market values. If you want to be good at what you do, you'll continue to learn -- hence CEUs are welcomed, not dreaded. I know MTs that scramble at the last minute just to get their CEUs in, but they're not really interested in the material.
And, dare I say it, there are those who are practicing with less that 500 hours that are fabulous therapists. They have the gift.
-
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
