Vermont Massage Therapists

29 members

Description

Anything and everything of interest to Vermont massage therapists and bodyworkers.
Comments Discussions Members

OPR recommends that MTs not be subject to professional regulation.

by Kevin Clark

Jan 4, 2011

Summary:  "The Office of Professional Regulation recommends that Massage Therapists not be subject to professional regulation in the State of Vermont."

 

From the VT Chapter of AMTA:

 

AMTA-VT Massage Legislative Update
VT AMTA logo

Vermont Office of Professional Regulation
Rules Against State Regulation

Thank you to all of you who participated in the initiative for regulation of
massage therapy in Vermont.  Your passion and voices have been a
tremendous support as we approached the state with a request to consider
regulation for our profession.  Unfortunately, the state did not see
the need to protect the public through licensing. 

"The Office of Professional Regulation recommends that
Massage Therapists not be subject to professional regulation in the
State of Vermont."

The following are the reasons OPR cited for not recommending state regulation for massage therapy:
  1. The applicants have not demonstrated that the unregulated practice of massage therapy can clearly harm or endanger the health,
    safety, or welfare of the public.  The potential for harm is remote and
    speculative.
  2. There has been no showing that the public requires a State approved assurance of initial and continuing professional ability. 
    Professional training and certification programs meet this need and are
    advertised by massage therapists.
  3. The best regulator of this profession remains the marketplace.  In the rare instance where harm may occur, the public is
    sufficiently protected through existing common law and civil remedies.
    Where someone posing as a massage therapist violates criminal laws,
    those laws effectively protect the public.
  4. No stronger civil remedies have been required, tried, or found to be insufficient.
You can read the complete "Massage Therapist Sunrise Report" from OPR at http://www.vtprofessionals.org/downloads/sunrise/massagetherapistsu...

We
continue to believe that state regulation of massage therapy is an
important step in protecting the public and enhancing our profession. 
Thank you again for your support!
Load Previous Replies
  • up

    judith jamieson

    I agree completely!

     

     Massage in itself is not a dangerous activity- totally untrained people massage each other all the time. And licensing does not protect the public from unethical practitioners- there are unfortunately unethical people who are fully trained and licensed. Unless it can be proven that the public is at risk from unregulated massage therapists there is no point in state regulation- and it is clear that it can't be proven.

    Regulation can't take place without definition and definition leads to limitation of what you can and can not do. Regulation in the medical world, where there are potential dangers to the public, led to the virtual elimination of naturopathy, homeopathy, and other forms that are only considered "alternative" now because the AMA got them excluded, allowing only MD's ( and DO's who managed to sneak in!) to practice

     

    I run a massage school and also would stand to benefit financially from licensing but that is far from the point. I also don't see that it would enhance the profession as many activities that are not especially well respected are licensed.

    Diedre Seeley said:

    There is no proof that licensing protects the public or enhances our profession.  I know some NY state licensed MTs that have no business practicing.  What licensing does do is line the coffers of massage schools, professional associations, and state budgets.  I am a certified NCBTMB instructor and would benefit from a licensing law should CEUs be part of any legislature.  Still I am adamantly opposed to state licensing.

    Jan 5, 2011

  • up

    Sheryl Rapee-Adams

    We (Sheryl & Chris) agree, too.

    This page's initial posting ends:  "We continue to believe that state regulation of massage therapy is an important step in protecting the public and enhancing our profession."

    Yet the organized opposition to Vermont MT licensing consists primarily of AMTA and ABMP members.  So who is "we"?

    Jan 5, 2011

  • up

    Diedre Seeley

    I believe "we" refers primarily to the AMTA, and to those MTs who mistakenly believe that licensing enhances our profession.

    Sheryl Rapee-Adams said:

    We (Sheryl & Chris) agree, too.

    This page's initial posting ends:  "We continue to believe that state regulation of massage therapy is an important step in protecting the public and enhancing our profession."

    Yet the organized opposition to Vermont MT licensing consists primarily of AMTA and ABMP members.  So who is "we"?

    Jan 5, 2011