Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge

Comment

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 23, 2009 at 4:06pm

Noel, the biggest problem that I see with state reciprocity is the schools. If the state is going to depend and the quality of education it wants to be in control of the schools. Because we have hours written into the state licensing laws this is going to be difficult when issuing practice act licenses. I think that it would be easier to convince states to agree to issue title act licenses to people licensed in other states, by accepting the other state license as proof of qualifications and doing a local criminal check and verifying ID.

I think that we have to make sure that each state board notifies the other state boards that the person may hold licenses of any criminal complaints or convictions. In that sense, sharing licensing information will actually improve the ability of states to control the “bad apples”.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 23, 2009 at 4:04pm

Hi Noel,

I'm sure the medical field goes through these trials and tribulations as well. It is part of growing problems. There are so many varibles involved!

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 23, 2009 at 4:00pm

Carl, if we could start over, with no one licensed in the nation as you were in CA, that would be an option. We are looking for a National Standard. There are people already licensed. We are having to come up with a solution to the entire picture. And lord help us, if we use the CA format. Just 250 hours can put you on the street to massage? That's less than the 300, Texas had. If Bob Benson had not got involved, the state would be even more a mess. I do not look to CA for any answers.

FSMTB will write a Practice Act, Standards of Practice and Title Acts. Some states will not come on board for various reasons. Most will, eventually. Those states, doing so will have portability rules included. I think a lot of therapists will relocate to these states, partially due to the portability issue.

I understand your pride in CA. I just disagree with the way it is set up.

Comment by Noel Norwick on October 23, 2009 at 3:55pm

Mike: I agree and would add that not only does the public not truly recognize what distinguishes different modalities, along with legislators/regulators, they don't understand why we "can't all get along."

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 23, 2009 at 3:46pm

Mike, I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. “I see it as if you were taught it in school, it is part of massage. That includes reflexology also.” I guess that I feel that the BOK should not document what is being taught but rather set the standards for what should be taught. I agree that this is an evolving field and we need to guide it and do so that does not impinge on the natural innovation in the field.

I also think that we disagree on the role of the BOK in licensing. “If the state licenses people, they would be responsible.” I think we should be responsible for telling the state what we deem as absolutely necessary before we allow someone to start practicing. I think we need to tell them that unless they can do x, y & z to this level of competency we don’t think you should allow them to practice and this is exactly why we have come to that conclusion. If you publish the document as it now stands I will bet that the licensing organization will take this as a directive from the massage community to use the BOK to set licensing standards.

“Lawyers will have a field day.” As it stands I agree and we will be responsible unless we can justify our standards.

“Does bodywork need to be another field or is it inclusive?” I think I see the problem. We have a solution in California. Only the massage title is licensed. The practice comes under the Health Freedom Act. To exempt a person from practicing medicine without a license the practitioner must disclose what they do, the theory of how it works their education and training and operate within a scope of practice very similar to the one in the BOK. The title act insures that the person is properly trained in whatever the board decides is massage and that the person’s criminal background has been checked. The rest is between the practitioner and the client to determine if the specific training and type of practice is what the client wants. The state is off the hook, This act was implemented because there are too many type of alternative wellness practices that do not pose significant harm to license each and every one. If a bodyworker’s training is so different form what is taught as massage and does not get licensed they can still operate but can not call it massage. If they need a form of certification it is still available to them usually through a private certification body.

By licensing the massage title it also provides law enforcement the same tools against prostitution that a practice act does. I do not know of any case against a prostitute that has been prosecuted because the massage was bad but that they either were not licensed to use the title or they performed sex acts under that title.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 23, 2009 at 3:40pm

I agree, but the therapists would be trying to split hairs by trying to say they were doing something that didn't need licensure when they were doing something that is being licensed. Then the client would say, "It says massage therapy on the door and that's what I asked for, not energy work or anything else." The public knows little about different modalities. They just know you massage.

Comment by Noel Norwick on October 23, 2009 at 3:30pm

Mike: Sorry, I should have addressed my prior message to you rather than Carl.

Comment by Noel Norwick on October 23, 2009 at 3:29pm

Carl: My experience supervising a shiatsu intern clinic in Santa Monica and as a volunteer in the UCLA Clinical Law program is that attorneys/lawyers working on behalf of claimants prefer to allege malpractice, inappropriate touch and/or sexual harassment (in that order). Chiropractors and physical therapists seem to be the one's most likely to allege scope of practice violations.

Comment by Noel Norwick on October 23, 2009 at 3:22pm

Carl: I like your thinking re pursuing development of a Title Act rather than a practice act. It's essentially what the legislation that created the recently established California Massage Therapy Council did. That said, how would you suggest we establish this approach nationally?

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 23, 2009 at 3:07pm

Kim, I think the best way to gain respect is to do what the Naturopaths in California did. Rather than go the practice act route then enacted a title act. It does not stop people from incorporating much of naturopathy into what they do but it sets aside the title of Doctor of Naturopathy and the initials N.D. for thouse who actually take the time and care to get a full education. If you refer a person to an N.D you know what you are getting. Padding practice acts with non-critical training does the opposite. It demeans the license.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 27
• 28
• 29
• 30
• 31
• …
• 51
• Next ›
• Page