massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge
Information
This is a place for public discussion of Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge issues in an open forum
Members: 101
Latest Activity: Jul 27, 2015
Discussion Forum
Any interest in creating a book/video exchange? 1 Reply
Perhaps better as its own group, please give your thoughts. Here's what I'm thinking (and maybe it exists here?)A place for1. Book/video reviews and commentary2. More to the point, a place for…Continue
Started by Deb Evans. Last reply by Bert Davich Jan 16, 2011.
MTBOK 2ND Draft 5 Replies
Hi, You've had time to print and review. What changes are needed? This is the last draft, before the presentation! The effort by MTBOK, funded through the Massage Therapy Foundation, to keep everyone…Continue
Started by Mike Hinkle. Last reply by Nancy Toner Weinberger Jun 13, 2010.
Palpation Hints 13 Replies
I apologize for sending a group email, I ment to post as a discussion, so here it is...My name is Tina and I will be starting massage therapy school in Jan. I have been trying to get a little bit…Continue
Started by Tina Mundy. Last reply by Carl W. Brown Nov 8, 2009.
Minimal requirements strawman 36 Replies
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…Continue
Started by Carl W. Brown. Last reply by Carl W. Brown Nov 7, 2009.
Comment Wall
Comment
-
Comment by Mike Hinkle on November 6, 2009 at 12:19pm
-
Everyone should read Keith's contribution. It will tell you why this BOK and Licensure in all states eventually is needed.
-
-
I think the energy question about blocking Chakras, was just making the point.
The BOK will determine what is best. They were chosen to do this and are hard at it. Ultimately, it it won't be how "we view" the BOK, (beore the finished product) but rather what we submit as ideas for the BOK to consider. If this is done, then the next draft will bear out what the task force feels should be added or deleted. You can review the document and make suggestions at www.mtbok.org
The BOK will present their findings at the Seattle, WA, Massage Therapy Foundation Meeting, May 13-15, 2010.
The BOK second draft will be out after the New Year!
-
Comment by Keith Eric Grant on November 6, 2009 at 10:49am
-
I haven't seen anybody here mistake a BOK for a regulatory body, but it does have wide implications. I tend to view a BOK as a review and formal stamp of acceptance of the evidence-base of massage. As such it feeds curricula development, assessment, and ultimately regulation. It also, implicitly, become a basis of knowledge in malpractice cases -- something that contributes to expert testimony on whether or not a particular practitioner was within accepted scope of massage and whether or not the were acting negligently or incompetently. Thus the variety of potential users adds to my feeling that the contents need to have an objective basis.
Mike, somewhere way down the list of comments, asked about the possibility of an injury occurring if someone were practicing energy work, not considered to be massage -- i.e. if it's a separate practice. First, you determine if the person lapsed into doing massage work -- i.e. was the claimed injury from physical contact and manipulation of soft tissue. Then, one has to consider whether we can make objective statements about use of knowledge and technique in a purely energy related claim that a practitioner "clogged my chakra" or the like. My feeling is that we cannot, and thus it isn't a system of knowledge but of subjective belief.
I am very much in favor of having a BOK, but I also believe that it pays to be cautious and selective in its creation. Once misinformation gets into the belief stream, it is next to impossible to get it back out. The lactic acid myth is a cautionary example -- much like mixing ink and water and then deciding you'd like them separate again.
I also very much discriminate between requirements in education and standards, the latter needing to have measurable outcomes, the former simply being procedural requirements which may or may not have benefits to actual practice. The pertinent question becomes, are we managing competency or appearance?
-
Comment by Carl W. Brown on November 6, 2009 at 10:20am
-
This group is sponsored by among others the FSMTB and NCBTMB who develop the licensing tests. This will affect licensing so BOK issues are licensing issues..
-
Comment by Bert Davich on November 6, 2009 at 8:12am
-
Hi Laura,
I don't think the participants in this group think the MTBOK can create regulation. Their concern is the BOK will be used by some in the industry to justify future legislation for interests and goals that may not necessarily be shared by others.
This comment is not about the BOK one way or another. It is about perception, correct or incorrect..
-
Comment by Laura Allen on November 6, 2009 at 7:58am
-
There seems to be confusion going on in some of the other discussion groups. Some people have the idea that the MTBOK is a regulatory body that is going to "require" schools to up their curriculum hours. People need to realize this is not some government entity that has the right to dictate to state boards. I applaud this project and if it results in raising the standards of the profession, I'm all for that, but people don't need to go off half-cocked without understanding what it's about.
-
-
Noel, I have read almost all the regs of every state trying to find common ground. Glad you did. Glad we agree. Me too.
-
Comment by Noel Norwick on November 2, 2009 at 11:51am
-
Mike:
1. If you don't have this bookmarked, I guess you haven't read your own state's regs?
2. FYI - did that long ago.
3. You continue to falsely imply that I suggest people work outside their scope. Not so! FYI - even when working within one's scope, one may always be subject to a "frivolous" lawsuit. I agree that it's best to err on the safe side.
4. Delighted to learn that we agree re Keith and his contributions.
-
-
Noel,
1. I don't have time to do your research also.
2.If you want something added to the BOK contact them
3.Good for you. But, a waiver will not help if harm befalls the client. Ask all the industries that have used them. An example would be bungie jumping. Got a waiver. Means nothing if harm happens. As I said, I work "within" my scope. I don't look to stretch the boundaries. I will ere on the safe side.
Good!
-
-
Mike:
1. Massage scope of practice. Would appreciate it if you would provide the link to Florida's regulations where it says that massage practitioners can teach their clients anything they are certified to.
2. If what the MTBOK will cover isn't guided by some generally agreed upon "scope of practice", how do you propose this be done?
3. Re alternative, complementary, integrative medical advice; California regs require anyone giving such advice to get informed consent from their client, provide said client with a copy and maintain for possible State inspection, a signed copy for at least 7 years. This does not encourage practitioners to go beyond their scope, but it does take the State out of the business of deciding what qualifications are required.
Re Keith - You're totally correct that he is doing a lot and I believe we (regardless what we may be doing to help) all owe him a great debt of gratitude!
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge to add comments!