California Massage Therapists

Comment

Comment by Rhonda Ford on June 27, 2010 at 8:19pm

I will be in Southern California educating others on why and how to use Certified Therapeutic Pure Grade Essential Oils. If anyone is interested, let me know. I will meet with you and give you some awesome samples of the BEST Essential Oils out there.

Comment by M. Audrey Pino on June 24, 2010 at 10:49pm

I l(((love))) this group. Thank You!

Comment by Sue Heldenbrand on June 17, 2010 at 6:02pm

I would like to extend an invitation to list in my holistic wellness directory. The basic listing is free. The premium listing is $20/year that allows you more exposure, links, a photo and submission of articles. The link is http://www.synergisticcenter.com/Directory-listing-form.html
http://www.synergisticcenter.com/Directory-listing-form.html

Comment by The Rev on May 27, 2010 at 7:47pm

Actually Noel, continuing to help others or practicing was never an issue. Nor do I think the BOK will be used against "us". Especially in CA, whatever "they" do will hardly impact anyone doing the work, whether legally or illegally. The laws will be close to unenforceable. I practiced "illegally in Berkeley, for 16 years. There are many that have done that much longer and are still doing so.

What it will impact are those coming into the work. The ante for entry was too high @ 100 hours so far as I am concerned. Many of the first 100 hours of my training was not needed to do the work. The first 100 hours was enough for me to do the work legally under the license of the Berkeley Y. Because of the law programs such as the one I plugged into are and will (probably) never return. It is the public that loses on that one.

Anywayyyy... keep on keepin' on. I think I have had enough of this thread.

The Rev


. .

Comment by Noel Norwick on May 27, 2010 at 12:50pm

Carl & Rev: Apparently like you, I'm concerned about how the BOK will be used against us. Regardless, I think we shall still be able to find ways to continue helping other feel and function better!

Comment by Carl W. Brown on May 27, 2010 at 11:51am

Rev,

"“The Massage Therapy Scope of Practice Statement,” were specifically intended and drafted to describe and define the entire field of practice of massage therapy as it presently exists" in otherwords a laundry list of what could be precticed. However, it is disturbing that they also say "Over time, the MTBOK will be a source of information that legislative and regulatory bodies rely on to obtain the best information about our profession." We are in deep dodo because it will be construded as a real BOK.

Comment by The Rev on May 27, 2010 at 9:12am

I have not looked at the 50 page document but will be indulging in it once I am set up in my new digs. My prayer is the BOK is not a WOI (wealth of information) that will be used as a guideline for curriculum for future generations of those doing this work. I have a very limited BOK but have a really tremendous WOI and sometimes a WOMI, a wealth of misinformation.

Looking at the group that created the BOK is scary for me. Their credentials are impressive. How much of what they have is going to filter through into the MTBOK for their belief that what they chose to learn is what is required to do the work? (I think I asked that correctly.) Maybe it will become necessary to become a rocket scientist to do this work.

The Rev

Comment by Johnathan Lambert on May 27, 2010 at 7:59am

Carl,

A big reason SB731 passed was due to nothing defining scope of practice. The California Chiropractic Association killed the prior bill due to scope being defined. They had an issue with Massage Therapists taking a joint beyond it's normal range of motion which many of us defined as a stretch.

This is where MTBOK comes into play. Hopefully the body of knowledge can carve out a proper scope of practice for all of us naionwide!

John

Comment by The Rev on May 26, 2010 at 4:02pm

nahhhhh... I disagree. Massage is simply, "manipulation of tissues (as by rubbing, kneading, or tapping) with the hand or an instrument". "for therapeutic purposes" completed the definition. Even stating "for therapeutic purposes" is going to far. Defining massage was NOT a problem until some folk came along and decided massage was not massage but Massage Therapy, a whole new ballgame.

What needs to be defined is Massage Therapy. Let me take a stab at it. Massage Therapy is a ???? provided by a person that has completed a structured education/curriculum as mandated by law, that allows for them to call themselves a Massage Therapist.

Call me a Masseur, Rubber, Holistic Healthcare Practitioner and Health Educator, Posturologist, Somatic Neuromuscular Reeducator, a Student of Integrated Touch, but, please do not minimize my work by referring to me as a Massage Therapist, a title easily obtained by complying with a bunch of hoops mandated by law. .

Don't make me rant, Carl...

The Rev

Comment by Carl W. Brown on May 26, 2010 at 3:37pm

Keith,

I think that one of the problems is that California does not define massage. I think that it should be defined as:

“Any service that uses any form of the words ‘massage’, ‘masseur’ or ‘masseuse’ to describe the service or the person administering the service or any touch based service that is performed on a person is not dressed in a manner suited for public places such a wearing street clothes, gym outfits or dance costumes.”

Thus it would exclude things such as stretching at the gym, dance training, most forms of energy work, forms of bodywork including chair work if they do not call it “chair massage” as well as shaking hands at a political rally.

It would exclude things that are not associated with prostitution and at least take that part of the industry out of the gun sights.

Carl

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page