Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge

Comment

Comment by Mike Hinkle on November 2, 2009 at 10:45am

Noel,

Yes, in Florida, I can confirm that once someone has been certified to teach Thai Yoga they can teach their clients anything they are certified to.


Noel, that is what I thought we were doing here. If this isn't the place to discuss the negative and positive (issues) aspects, please tell me where is. The group can do whatever it wants. I want to talk about the BOK.

Noel, my scope of practice, keeps me from doing so. I follow it. I may show someone some stretches inside a doorway, if I feel it is not contraindicated and then only to a minimal extent. But if it were anymore, I would refer them out. I do not go beyond my scope and I personally don't think anyone else should either. That is a far cry different than your offering of "medical advice of any kind, without fear of prosecution." approach.

If you are helping Keith, that's great, but exactly as you stated, how would I know? Thus my closing statement. He needs all the help he can get, he is doing a lot.

Comment by Noel Norwick on November 2, 2009 at 10:23am

Carl: Re: Noel, as a matter of fact the new CA title act will not exempt MTs form having to still operate under 2053.6 and still provide disclosures. You mentioned “touch therapy” it is interesting that I was just speaking with Dawn Nelson author of “From the Heart Through the Hands” and she has taught people how to help people though touch."

I didn't say the new certification would exempt massage practitioners from compliance with 2053.6. It clearly does not! Like you, I strongly urge all California practitioners to have clients sign a suitable informed consent form if they are going to discuss alternative, complementary, integrative approaches to healthcare with their clients.

Re "touch therapies": I suspect that students/practitioners of Asian/Energy based forms of massage find it easier to focus on and think about the nuances/qualities of touch than do those trained in the more "hard evidence" based Western forms.

Comment by Noel Norwick on November 2, 2009 at 10:14am

Mike: Please confirm that you're saying that the massage practitioner's licensed scope of practice regulations in Florida permit discussing/teaching therapeutic yoga drills?

Yes, we have been practicing Thai Yoga in Florida for years Noel. We brought Michael Buck of the Vedic Conservatory into the Hall of Fame in 2008. And I'm not sure about Shiatsu/Doin, but I'll bet you someone outside of California is practicing it."

Re the MTBOK; I'm curious why you think this "group's" purpose is to discuss "objections" to it in light of the fact that is was begun with the statement that:
"This is a place for public discussion of Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge issues in an open forum."

Re "medical advice": Do you mean to imply that you always strictly limit yourself to only providing clients with manual therapy (massage) and never speak with or even respond to client questions regarding their healthcare concern?

"But Noel, arguing such points is silly. If you can offer "medical advice of any kind", without fear of prosecution, bless you. I do not want that responsibilty. And I hope you are not offering that suggestion to the BOK. We are here to talk about the BOK and objections you may have to it."

Re: "CA has many problems. Please work with Keith on making them better, thanks." What leads you to think that I haven't been working with Keith and many others to do exactly that?

Comment by Mike Hinkle on November 1, 2009 at 6:28pm

I'm glad you made that statement. So the scope of practice, the BOK has presented, is ok with you. Got it.

This, however doesn't distract from your state's massage practice being carved on and challenged by other existing medical related fields. I hope there are enough freedoms left to practice. And yes, other states have problems as well, but the subject was CA.

Comment by Carl W. Brown on November 1, 2009 at 6:19pm

Mike, the scope of practice allowed by CA law for unlicensed practitioners if very similar to the one in the BOK. For more information see: http://www.ablebodyworks.com/cmt.htm

As you can see this follow the British Columbia study that show that there were many types of health care services like massage that were essentially too low a risk of harm to the public to warrant licensing.

“CA has many problems. Please work with Keith on making them better, thanks.” Not as many as states with massage licensing that effectively outlaws practices like mine.

Comment by Carl W. Brown on November 1, 2009 at 6:09pm

Noel, as a matter of fact the new CA title act will not exempt MTs form having to still operate under 2053.6 and still provide disclosures. You mentioned “touch therapy” it is interesting that I was just speaking with Dawn Nelson author of “From the Heart Through the Hands” and she has taught people how to help people though touch. She mentioned that it is almost impossible to teach MTs this skill because of their massage training. Yes people do practice it in other states but outside of the law because there is no way that they can practice within it except in state like CA. Outlawing legitimate practices is a bad idea and that is why I am in this fight. I am fighting to save legitimate non-massage bodywork. It sometimes feels like tilting windmills against the forces of groups like the AMTA. I am hoping that the MTBOK will produce a legitimate BOK because it not only will truly improve massage but it will let people see that it in fact different from other forms of bodywork which have their own BOKs that at time have training that at sometimes different and sometimes contraindicated.

The BOK as currently drafted does not help massage but it does obfuscate the distinction of different forms of bodywork needing different training. It also presumes that if you train for one modality that it improves your ability to do another. My Craniosacral teacher and I were discussing some one we knew in common. He was a Rolfer and she mentioned that the Rolfing training was a determent to learning CST especially the biodynamic variety. Actually I think Ida might have been a better CST student than most Rolfers today because of the training that they currently receive.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on November 1, 2009 at 3:55pm

Yes, we have been practicing Thai Yoga in Florida for years Noel. We brought Michael Buck of the Vedic Conservatory into the Hall of Fame in 2008. And I'm not sure about Shiatsu/Doin, but I'll bet you someone outside of California is practicing it.

But Noel, arguing such points is silly. If you can offer "medical advice of any kind", without fear of prosecution, bless you. I do not want that responsibilty. And I hope you are not offering that suggestion to the BOK. We are here to talk about the BOK and objections you may have to it.

CA has many problems. Please work with Keith on making them better, thanks.

Comment by Noel Norwick on November 1, 2009 at 3:38pm

Mike: re "The swipes, as you put it, are based in fact. Because something can not be argued does not make it a swipe. Name a modality that is practiced in CA that would be lost by licensure (If it could exist). There are none. Fact!"

You are mistaken!!! Please let us know if in your state or any state in which massage is licensed, massage practitioners can perform "touch therapy" and teach their clients therapeutic movement drills. Shiatsu/Doin, Thai/Yoga, and too many other developing styles to bother trying to document!

Here in California, people can practice massage and by adhering to California Business & Professions Code, Section 2053.5 regulations can offer "medical advice" of any kind without fear of being accused of/prosecuted for practicing medicine with proper licensure.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 30, 2009 at 3:17pm

Let's see what they come up with. Until then, help Keith!

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 30, 2009 at 3:11pm

Mike, my objection is not to regulation but rather bad regulation. This is why I think that if the BOK is done right it will improve the quality of massage, make it the training more cost effective, and clarify exactly how to improve regulation so that it controls what is important and does not unduly restrain where it does not apply.

My criticisms are about existing laws, but until we develop a good standard we are all just guessing about how to improve or change them. If we develop a standard that we can objectively use to predict performance and know what training is important, to what level and what training does not affect performance, we will know how to train, test, also regulate.

The standard will also give us a better idea of what the scope of massage really is. Now you can talk to three people and get four opinions because we have never put together a coherent functional model of massage.

You are right that others professions like PTs and chiros feel that we are a threat. That is even the more reason to get our act together. For example, if we set the A & P requirements too high then we are acknowledging that maybe we need to be PTs. But if we can prove that we can offer a valuable and valid service because we do different things and have a different approach we do not need that same training we can justify ourselves as a viable and separate profession. The same thing with chiropractic. We offers a different service that has a different BOK. We do different type of stretches and defiantly do not do HVLA spinal manipulations so our patients does have to worry about things like arterial dissections.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• …
• 51
• Next ›
• Page