We Get Letters and E-mail

By Editorial Staff
May 29, 2009

We Get Letters and E-mail

By Editorial Staff
May 29, 2009


Massage Today encourages letters to the editor to discuss matters relating to the publication's content. Submitted letters may be published in a future issue or online, and are edited for content and clarity as necessary. Please send all correspondence by e-mail to editorial@massagetoday.com or regular mail to:

Massage Today
P.O. Box 4139
Huntington Beach, CA 92605


Gunfight at the O.K. Corral

Dear Editor:

In response to your August 2006 column "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral," we would like to clarify AMTA's view of the importance of having one entry-level massage therapy exam, or as you state, "why one set of exams is better for the profession than two, 12 or 112."

A single entry-level exam allows for consistency in licensure and the ability for portability whereby massage therapists would have the freedom to legally practice in any market. It provides a uniform, measurable standard for all who enter the profession and allows for more consistent expectations and better protection for the public. Also, AMTA members have told us that consistent licensure and portability are important to them.

Our profession has significant differences in educational standards and licensure requirements from state to state, making portability of massage practice difficult. We believe multiple entry-level exams will only add another layer of complexity, "red tape" and delay for those massage therapists who wish to relocate to or practice in a different state. AMTA believes that a long-term commitment to licensure, and consistency in licensure, will lead to portability for all massage therapists.

If the profession were to have multiple exams, there would be no guarantee the exams would support the same educational standards. The massage therapy profession doesn't have a means for enforcing one set of standards in multiple exams. The likely result for massage therapy students, new massage therapists, state regulators and consumers would be confusion. Instead of adding to the confusion, AMTA is committed to working toward fair and consistent licensure in all states. With more than one entry-level exam, how could a student decide what standards are best? How would regulators know which standards or exams best measure whether someone has the necessary information and skills to enter massage therapy practice? And, how would the consumer know who is qualified to practice?

To achieve consistent standards, our profession truly needs to find agreement on what knowledge someone should have to enter the profession. That knowledge should be measured in one entry-level exam. We don't believe competing exams will help achieve the goal of portability. AMTA would like to reaffirm that we support the concept of an organization of state massage therapy boards. This concept can provide a venue for states to communicate about professional standards, fair regulation and portability of massage therapy. AMTA continues to encourage the FSMTB to work with the NCBTMB to strengthen the existing exam. AMTA's commitment to its members includes pursuing consistent standards, working toward portability and encouraging collaboration within the profession. We believe this is an opportunity for all to collaborate in creating a strong, unified profession.

Board of Directors
American Massage Therapy Association
Via e-mail


The Value of a Single Agency

Dear Editor:

I just read your opinion on the controversy surrounding the NCE and the FSMTB. From my prospective as a continuing education provider, I see the value of one agency to report to. The process for the NCB approval is long and arduous, but it almost seems that it would be regardless of who was doing it. I personally do not wish to add another certifying body that I will need to be approved by. I say fix the system in place, don't invent a whole new system.

In our town, the technical college just started a massage therapy training program; the lead instructor had not taken the NCB due to information she had received about this ongoing controversy, and therefore was unable to become state certified. The massage therapists in our area were concerned about this, since the majority are state certified and believe instructors at a state-sponsored school should be as well. We have worked through it, but it's an example of how two certifying boards can cause problems, at least until they are recognized by all regulating bodies. When ABMP encourages its "members" to not take the exam, they are encouraging them to disregard the credentials many of us have worked hard to achieve. I feel it is a slap in the face to those of us who believe in raising the bar of our profession, causing disharmony and confusion for both therapists and the general public.

Kay Peterson
AMTA-WI Chapter, First VP
Via e-mail


The "Magic" of Energy Work

Dear Editor:

This is in response to the article titled "Taking the 'Magic' Out of Energy Work," in the August 2006 issue of Massage Today. First I will start with my background. I am an LMT and also have Master status in the energy fields of Reiki, SSR (Sehkem, Sehkeim, Reiki) and Integrated Energy Therapy.

Energy work, by the definition I have come to recognize, deals exclusively with the energy fields, chakras and meridians of the body. They are indeed very intertwined with the physical body. There are seven energy fields surrounding the physical body and there also are seven main chakras in these energy fields surrounding the body. (There are many more chakras around the physical body; however, modalities such as Reiki deal only with the seven main ones.) The chakras feed the meridians, of which there are 12 that are defined in mainstream Chinese medicine such as acupuncture. There also are certain points throughout the body (on meridian lines) that have a tendency to hold energetic trauma. This is a very basic view of the energetic bodies (in the interest of keeping this short).

Energy work specifically deals with healing and balancing these fields, the chakras and the meridians which they supply. While imbalances and stagnation in the energy systems will affect the musculature of the body, the unwinding of the musculature is mainly dealt with by massage therapy in its purest sense: the physical manipulation of the tissues. So, energy work, such as a Reiki session, may in an indirect way to clear some of the physical manifestations of energy imbalances, but is more commonly requested by clients to help clear emotional issues that are "stuck" in the energy fields. For physical injury, such as a car accident or physical trauma, massage therapy typically is more therapeutic for pain relief and muscle healing. (I say typically, because energy work can be very beneficial for pain relief after surgery or an acute injury, as an example.)

My practice is a mixture of both and my clients are well informed of the therapeutic benefit of both, as I explain all procedures I perform so that my clients may be educated about their bodies (both physical and energetic). There is nothing "magical" about the work I do. The energetic bodies do have a scientific basis and the relief that my clients experience due to using both physical and energetic manipulations can be profound. I also agree that even if there is no specific energy work being done during a massage therapy session, there always is an exchange of energy between client and therapist, so intent is very, very important.

I do take exception to the attitude of the author of the above-referenced article, as it is quite apparent she had an unfortunate experience with someone trained (maybe) in energy healing who was using it for self-serving purposes. While I know there are many different folks out there who may fall into the trap of believing they have some extraordinary power, those of us who truly understand the nature of energy work, know that the power does not come from us, but from the healing powers of the body that we have the privilege of assisting in the healing process.

Debi Kring Tharp,
LMT, NCTMB
Via e-mail