Comments on: Proof of Harm? http://thebodyworker.com/massage_blog/proof-of-harm/ Massage Therapy Research - The future of the massage profession. Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:42:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Jason Paul McCartan http://thebodyworker.com/massage_blog/proof-of-harm/comment-page-1/#comment-88 Jason Paul McCartan Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:04:48 +0000 http://thebodyworker.com/massage_blog/proof-of-harm/#comment-88 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. 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.

]]>