Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge

Comment

Comment by Gloria Coppola on October 22, 2009 at 1:38pm

Stephen, Gerry , Rudy and Mike - Great thoughts!

I have been tracking these discussions periodically (as I don't have the time to read them all) and I must say it truly seems to be a battle of the ego. There I have said it!

Mike and others are INVOLVED in these committees to help our profession. Perhaps if more contributed instead of complaining and arguing as I have seen for over 20 years , maybe someone would take us seriously and we would get something accomplished!


I have much gratitude for the leaders working on a plan to "start this in motion". Rome wasn't built in a day, remember?

I must also add for a group of of individuals that on the whole claim to be "spiritual", we have a lot to learn yet. Everyone, take a deep breath and find a 'common' cause.

Comment by Noel Norwick on October 22, 2009 at 1:30pm

Mike: While the MTBOK "forces no one to do anything!", do you think it wrong to suspect that it will provide guidance for future development of the FSMTB's MBLEx and The National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork's exams?

Additionally, what use do you think the Alliance for Massage Therapy Education is likely to make of it's final version?

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 22, 2009 at 12:30pm

Carl, I guess you haven't read it yet! The BOK forces no one to do anything!

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 22, 2009 at 12:16pm

Chip, I started this because I think that we need the interactive nature of a discussion to bring out the issues. I will submit the more substantial of my comments as I have done before but I think that all the members of the committee should join to see the flavor and nuances of the discussion. If the comments were only about detail issues that the submission process will work but it this case there are questions about the very nature and purpose of the BOK that go beyond a simple submission.

If the BOK is intended to be “Competency Requirements for a Massage Therapist in 42 Terms of Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSA)” then we have major issues:

Does a person have to be competent in each and every KSA to meet minimum requirements to practice as the document states? If so then each and every KSA needs a stated level of competency. If not then is a zero competency acceptable and how can we set minimal standards?

This brings up the issue of modalities. Take item 401 organs. Do I describe a stomach as a digestive organ? Do I have to be able to treat hiatal hernias? Do I need to be able to deal with the yin and earth energetic aspects of the stomach or can I check does not apply?

For one I need answers because what I see makes no sense unless the BOK is just a laundry list of things that an MT can possibly do and if so then state that it is only a list of possible KSAs because I don’t think I am the only one confused.

One way submission does not work if we have no idea how to comment without our questions answered.

I think that if you design that standard so that the person must meet all requirements for any modality you will find that other than ethics, business practices, HIPPA privacy and universal precautions that there is nothing else that is essential to all modalities.

If I am doing acupressure the only anatomy I need to be able to locate meridians and points and when I look at a tongue it is only in terms of diagnosing energy problems.

Padding the BOK to force massage into something that it is not through force of law is wrong.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 22, 2009 at 11:27am

Like I said Carl, research is behind. MT's will continue to do the work we do. Scientists or whomever can be simple-minded and think of it as "Alice in Wonderland" thoughts on our part, who cares. We don't. We are going forward and research has to catch up!

Chip Hines just posted an article on his Blog, that explains everything. You need to study it!

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 22, 2009 at 11:18am

Mike, I agree that energy or something beyond the medical model exists. I have patients who have benefited from work that cannot be explained by science. Is it just my subjective imagination or at best a shared delusion? I think it is hard to share delusions with animals and am I delusional what I can actually move joints more after working them, find things that match medical diagnosis, find things that are anatomically vales but beyond that realm of current state of medical art, or see that x-rays bear out that I have done to medically impossible?

I believe that science has become a religion. I know because I used to be such a person but have come to understand that it is just a tool that does not actually have to have anything to do with actual reality. Is light a wave or particle? It does not actually matter if I know when to treat it as one or the other. Science is a very useful tool that we can use to create things that enhance our world and bring order out of chaos. If I want to build a bridge I use engineering based of science.

On the other hand, when people like many MTs find that they is a world outside of science they often tend to dismiss the value of science and substitute scientific theory with theories that are not scientific or even rational. One has to understand that reason does not work in this world.

In spite of how complex science is, it is far easier to deal with than the Alice in Wonderland of energy work. One also has to accept that one has to use rational blended with extra rational or the results are irrational.

I majored to physics and worked with computers for 40 years and started taking courses in an orthopedic form of bodywork when I discovered that I could do things that made no scientific sense. I kept developing objective test to see if what I was “feeling” has any basis in reality. The answer is yes. It is not consistent and sometimes I think that is my conscious mind wishing that I would pick up on something. But I also found that when I approach a problem rationally and got nowhere that just backing off and clearing my mind would usually help.

I have come to understand that when you limit yourself to science only you have to reject everything that does not fit the model and in doing so you lose information. You end up treating the measurements not the person.

I also believe that while there are things outside of the pale of science that systems like meridians, auras etc. are wrong and possible dangerous. Systematizing things that you do not understand means that you follow the system and shut out information just like following a scientific model but the model is not scientific and is un-provable. Not knowing the real action of what we are doing leave us exposed. I think energy works but I do not think is works as people would describe it, nor do I think that someday there may not be a scientific explanation.

Comment by Chip Hines on October 22, 2009 at 11:13am

I notice that there has been a lot of comments on energy work and the MTBOK. Since we have had a lot of comments come in directly to the MTBOK Task Force via the online comment form (available via www.mtbok.org) and we have both made changes to the document and responded to many of those who have submitted comments, I added a post to my blog based on the responses we've sent. You might want to check it out at my blog on this site or at mtbok.blogspot.com.

Im pleased that there is active discussion on the MTBOK here, and recommend that as you think what you are saying needs to be reflected in our work, please submit your specific comments or suggestions to us via our online form.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 22, 2009 at 10:53am

Carl, You are only using part of the explanation of that Section, "Pick and choose?"

It follows through on line 680 Saying, "Describe the following". Where are you seeing so that everyone who wants to be an MT MUST be competent in everything on the list including proficiency in energy work.?

Please stick to the MTBOK as written.

Comment by Carl W. Brown on October 22, 2009 at 10:35am

Gerry, it looks like the real issue is not about energy but what is a BOK. A BOK should be a tool to model the minimum requirement for entry into the profession. If it is just a list of all things an MT could possibly do it is worthless to set any kind of standards.

Line 42 states “Competency requirements” so that everyone who wants to be an MT MUST be competent in everything on the list including proficiency in energy work. The issue is what happens to thouse who are not able, willing or trained to do energy work? Are they to be excluded from massage work?

Id do energy work but I am adamantly opposed to forcing people to learn energy work

Either exclude all items not actually essential as a minimum requirement to practice all forms of massage or change the document to indicate that it is just a list of things that an MT could possibly do.

If it is a list of things that you have to be competent to do a minimal that you need to either restrict it to things that each and every therapist must know or limit it the specific modalities for which it is essential.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 22, 2009 at 9:57am

"Thoughtfully, cranked out," thank you! And yes, time will tell!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 32
• 33
• 34
• 35
• 36
• …
• 51
• Next ›
• Page