Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Here is an interesting discussion on turf wars from Massage Therapy:
Quote:
There are several issues that California Alliance of Massage and Bodywork Schools (CAMBS) considers as critical for massage schools to be aware of and on which to provide feedback to Senator Figueroa (Senator.Figueroa@sen.ca.gov). One of these is an attempt by the California Chiropractic Association (CCA) to severely limit the ability of massage practitioners and therapists to use passive stretching.
The CCA recently proposed the following restrictions which they would like to see added to SB 412.
(1)…"Massage" does not include the prescription of legend drugs or controlled substances, spinal joint manipulation, movement of a joint beyond the normal physiological active range of motion for that joint, the diagnosis of illness or disease, or treatment for which a license to practice medicine, chiropractic, physical therapy, or podiatry is required.
(2) Notwithstanding (1), A massage therapist and massage practitioner may move a joint within its normal physiological range of motion for that joint if under the prescription of a medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy or doctor of chiropractic.
This means that joint movements would require a prescription from a doctor, and that massage therapists could not move a joint into a true stretch, but only to the active limit of the range of motion. Massage therapists have been doing stretches safely for decades, and it is commonly and safely taught in massage schools. Keith Grant provided a great deal of data to the CCA and to Senator Figueroa backing up the ability of massage therapists to use stretching safely.
CAMBS is in strong agreement with the following statement by ABMP President Bob Benson regarding the restriction on movement of any joint beyond the active range of motion. We believe that it is extremely important for schools to express to Senator Figueroa support for ABMP's and CAMBS's stand.
Bob Benson: "While I appreciate the CCA's effort to make suggestions, their proposal is unacceptable. Its implementation would narrow the scope of practice already existing for over 30,000 individuals now practicing massage in California, specifically by limiting massage therapists' abilities to move a joint within its normal physiological range of motion only to instances in which a medical doctor, doctor of osteopathy, or doctor of chiropractic has prescribed such work. A total of 36 states have now adopted statewide massage licensing or certification statutes; none of the 36 definitions of "Massage" contained within those statutes include scope restriction language such as CCA is proposing. Also unacceptable is their proposed elimination of the adjective "spinal;" removing that word would expand the prohibition to all joint manipulation rather than the intended "spinal joint manipulation."
"The massage community has made an extensive, good faith effort to examine research, patterns of practice, resulting records of injuries sustained or absence thereof. That information has been shared with CCA's duly appointed representative. While a subsequent verbal exchange of views occurred, no contradictory scientific or pattern of harm evidence has been forthcoming from the chiropractic community. We believe the absence of such information reflects the reality that for many years massage therapists have been safely working within the realm of "normal physiological range of motion for a joint."
"The massage community has made significant changes in its proposed definition of "Massage" within SB 412 to try to accommodate concerns expressed by the chiropractic and physical therapy communities. While I can only speak on behalf of Associated Bodywork & Massage Professionals' 10,300 California members, I anticipate that other massage community voices will share the view that we will simply have to agree to disagree with the chiropractic community on the definition language."
What should you do now? Write to Senator Figueroa and tell her that active and passive stretching have always been a part of massage, that there is no evidence that massage therapists cause any harm to the public by stretching their clients' joints during massage, and that stretching is taught in massage schools in a safe manner. Massage therapists will actively oppose any bill that would take away part of the accepted scope of practice for massage.
Chiropractors trying to control Massage Therapy
Linear Mode
