Massage Today encourages letters to the editor to discuss matters relating to the publication's content. Letters may be edited for space and clarity, and published in a future issue or online. 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
After the August 2005 issue of Massage Today was dubbed the "Medical Massage" issue, we received a large number of letters regarding that topic. Here is a representative sample of those letters. Additional letters appeared in the October issue of Massage Today. You can read those letters at www.massagetoday.com/archives/2005/10/16.html
|
Dear Editor:
Thank you so much for your timely and poignant editorial in the July issue of Massage Today. I think you really covered some key points that have been missed in this discussion of medical massage. I agree with you that these organizations with proprietary interests are mucking up the profession - where we MTs work as opposed to the industry - where the $ is made.
It is sad that these major players are only going to confuse and divide the profession while claiming to be an advocate for all massage professionals. I have been practicing massage since 1986, and have been on boards for the CA AMTA and until early this year the CA USMMA (formerly AMMTA.) I took five of TMMO classes last year and thought that joining the USMMA would be a way to continue. While the classes were quite good, the organization (TMMO, USMMA, MMNCB) has a conflict of interest problem - all roads seem to lead to David Luther. It's interesting that many of the discussions on line that are critical of Luther's organization have people in TMMO, USMMA doing spin control that is envious of many political organizations.
I posted on the bodywork.com board last month in response to TMMO's fear-based marketing push and was responded to by Mr. Luther himself. I was amazed at the arrogance and ignorance of his response as he side stepped the issue while proclaiming his insider knowledge and love for massage. I don't think we want someone like him representing massage therapists or medical massage. We need team players who won't grandstand for their own financial and political interests.
I resigned from my position as 2nd VP due to the lack of communication and support from the national office. It was impossible to get info from the national office, we were promised lots and got nothing, and when board members would call Mr. Luther, he didn't remember who we were. I guess the PA lawsuit was more important.
I don't think the USMMA has our best interests in mind as they try to build their base. Medical massage is not clearly defined and nobody seems interested as the big stakeholders - AMTA, USMMA, AMMA - throw their weight around. I could go on and on. I am happy this issue is getting its due and I appreciate your clear thinking, writing, and open mind. I look forward to reading your next issue.
Jody Hutchinson, NCTMB
Via e-mail
Dear Editor:
I read with great interest your article on Medical Massage. This has been an issue of great importance to me as I do, what I believe, is Medical Massage. However, I chose not to bill insurance for a variety of reasons. Isn't it interesting that massage is being represented by testimony before a judge as to what one person's opinion is on what is Medical Massage? We cannot even, as a profession, agree on a minimum requirement for entry into the profession. We have only 35 states who are licensed and have no portability or reciprosity of our license. We have no standardization of preparation in school as evidence by these other quotes from the same issue of Massage Today. Tracy Walton said, "Our pathology and clinic training doesn't always prepare us for gathering information quickly, easily and thoroughly in a range of massage settings. From massage therapists I meet around the country, I am learning that given lists of contraindications, massage therapists don't always know how to interview for them. Given lists of interview questions, we are not necessarily taught how to use the answers."
Also in We Get Letters and Emails, Carl W. Nelson writes to support not increasing the science component in schools. From a 1987 interview with Dr. Trager by Carol Cavanaugh from The Yoga Journal, "I see my students getting results without all the anatomy, physiology, pathology, or anything else." He also quotes Brita Ostrom from Esalen, "mentioned a recent mailing she received that had been sent to massage school directors to solicit input on a proposal to increase the required number of hours of study in anatomy. She said her response was that if she could be satisfied that students are learning adequately how to touch, then and only then, could she support an increase in the hours of anatomy." How about knowing what they are touching?
These quotes clearly point out that graduates are not ready to do insurance billing and/or Medical Massage. It is a minimum exposure to the professional field and yet we have people with 200 hours of training and no additional CEU training able to bill insurance companies for $200/hr visits. I agree with the principle of what USMMA and AMMA are trying to do, but would feel more comfortable with a three party examination board administering the test, who has no financial interest in the outcome. If we want to be taken seriously as a viable profession, we need to clean up our act. There is a whole lot of necessary work to be done before a nationally recognized certification exam can be offered that the general public and the medical profession can use as a benchmark of knowledge to select their therapists to meet their needs. We need a unity front to represent our profession to educate the public to the benefits of massage as a modality of first choice, not as a last resort.
Jackie Flowers RN, LMT
1st VP Maine AMTA
Dear Editor:
As someone who has experienced first hand, and greatly believes in the model of "medical massage", may I suggest that those who are knowledgeable about the benefits of, and believe in this type of "physical therapy", work to introduce these methods to the educators at the Physical Therapy schools?
Studies exist that point to the efficacy of these technique, (techniques which are very similar and almost identical to traditional Osteopathy, by the way), so it is a matter of presenting them to, and having them studied and accepted by the schools of Physical Therapy. Why, when the business and medical foundations already exist for working with people in pain, (i.e. Physical Therapy, would we want to re-invent the wheel?)
I realize that some massage therapists will object to the extra and more rigorous schooling. But if our goal is to work in the most effective manner possible with patients in pain, within a legally and medically recognized, and adequately compensated profession, it is worth the extra effort.
JoAnn Agnone, CMT
Via e-mail
Dear Editor:
The splendid lead article "Medical Massage: Facts, Fiction, and Frustration" by Rebecca J. Razo and this publication's effort to include several articles and letters presenting a range of perspectives on this subject in the August 2005 issue, clearly demonstrates that Massage Today is the leading publication for insightful information on controversial issues.
In reading these articles and letters pertaining to medical massage, I was reminded of some words of wisdom by Brita Ostrom, one of forty members of the world-renowned Esalen Massage Crew, from the very fine article by Brian Coughlan in the Massage Therapy Journal, Millennium 2000 issue: "Esalen, where it all began in the mid-20th century, looks to the 21st; Esalen had an important role in popularizing massage for health maintenance and stress reduction," in which she pronounced herself pleased "that the notion of the whole person, recognized within the body, is received worldwide with a great sign of relief and air of excitement." Yet, she said, "In North America today, in our rush to gain credibility, the field of massage turns back again and again to the medical model of separation and 'fixing.' Knowing the name of the bone and the attached muscle is simply not the same as coming into contact with it in a way that invites your client to contact it as well, and, from that space, help facilitate the needed release."
Carl W. Nelson
Via e-mail
