Oct 06
20

Proof of Harm?

1 Comment

What proof is there that massage can harm others?

Not much according to Keith Grant who wrote this exceptional white paper on it called “Review of Issues in Massage Governance”

Licensing does little to protect us from harm from any practitioner.

The Seattle Times Article “License to Harm” outlines the various healthcare providers and how many cases were sited of harm being done.

If licensing doesn’t protect the public, then what will?

The only answer in my opinion is to make more massage therapists accountable through the process of supervision. Massage therapists are not trained much in such things as ethical relationships or about the therapeutic relationship that occurs.

Share on Facebook
If you like this Digg it!, Stumble Upon it or Del.icio.us it!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis

Related posts:

  1. Proof of Harm in Massage Therapy
  2. Proof of Harm
  3. Colorado Massage Licensing
  4. NCBTMB
  5. The Licensing Debate

Tags:

This entry was posted on October 20, 2006 at 6:11 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted in Licensing and Legislation by Julie Onofrio 1 Comment

1 Response to "Proof of Harm?"

  • Jason Paul McCartan says:
    October 24, 2006 at 7:04 am
    Reply

    Licensing isn’t really a way to protect the public, although it’s pushed as a way. If you have a licence, and then do something to harm the public, then you may have your licence removed. Although a possible deterrent and useful in possibly staving off harm, licensing is really designed to restrict who can do a particular thing, and how to punish them if they step out of the bounds of the licensing agreement. I had a blog posting covering this which I lost, and I’m in the process of putting it together again.

    Supervision might be one of the answers, but the problem is in enforcing it. If the enforcement of it is tied into licensing, then it still will be ineffective because there will always be a first instance of harm (or possible instance) that requires then that you report the offender to the licensing body.

    Supervision/peer mentoring is a two way voluntary process and a number of practitioners may not share details or get invvolved. Wanting to be involved in a peer group that monitors each other really will include those that are ethical to begin with, and that have no problem with others commenting on their business practices. There will always be others who chose not to be involved. If peer supervision is enforced then it becomes far too “big brother” and suffers from a number of other problems.

Leave a Comment