SMMN Vol.2, No.2

Spiritual Massage Ministry Newsletter

 Vol. 2,  No. 2                                               ISSN 1080-3262                                                 July 1996

THE THEME OF THIS ISSUE

My people are destroyed for lack of kowlege. (Hosea 4:6)

Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32)

Contents

Since massage does not cause harm, why license massage

      therapists to prevent  harm? All that glitters is not gold.

"There's something rotten in" Ontario.

It's important to understand the difference between the

    possibility and probably of harm.

The Province of Quebec is a model for "How to do it right."

      Look before you leap.

State licensing (practice) acts are inappropriate for

     massage because there's no harm.

Caveat  lector. Let the reader beware.

Is massage more dangerous than driving a car?.

An appropriate examination for massage competency.

The responsibility of self-sacrifice.

Thanatopsis.

SINCE MASSAGE DOES NOT CAUSE HARM,

WHY LICENSE MASSAGE THERAPISTS

TO PREVENT HARM?

ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD

 Albert Schatz, Alan Tillotson, and Mary Brewster

Editor's note. Although this Newsletter  is primarily concerned with spiritual aspects of bodywork, it occasionally publishes information about secular bodywork which may interest its readers. This report presents convincing evidence that massage therapists do not cause harm.

This information is important because some promoters of state regulation of massage still claim licensure is needed to protect the public from harm, but they present no evidence that harm occurs. If there is no harm, we don't need state licensure (practice laws) to protect the public from harm. Such laws should be repealed or replaced by title protection laws. Two reports by Raymond L. Beck, an attorney and a bodyworker, provide information about title protection versus licensing practice acts. 1,2

                There's no evidence of harm from

                       a database survey

In 1993, Alexander located reports of 30 injuries listed for massage in the Medline database. Not a single injury was caused by a massage therapist. Alexander concluded that so few reports of injury (in the English language over a period of 25 years) indicated "the relative safety of massage." Most of the injuries were caused by medical doctors.3

There's no harm in the Canadian

Province of Quebec

Comprehensive research in the Province of Quebec revealed that massage caused no harm. The Government Office of Professions conducted a two-year survey  of massage schools and associations of massage schools, and professional massage organizations. The official report concluded, "It is not necessary to regulate alternative therapies, including massage therapy, because they do not represent any serious risk of harm to the public.

"This recommendation is based on the fact that none of the groups that we consulted specifically on manual therapies was able to demonstrate or document any ... damage [harm] caused by incompetent massage therapists."4

There's no harm in the Canadian

Province of 0ntario

Massage therapists cause no harm in Ontario. But, for reasons discussed in the following two sections, that cannot be attributed to the 2200-hour training which the province requires.5,6

 

There's no harm

in Hawaii

A report of a state legislative committee which studied massage in Hawaii concluded, "There is a slight potential for personal injury from the practice of massage."4 This is not convincing evidence of harm.

There's no evidence of harm from

the internet

One of us (A.T.) used the internet to request evidence of harm from the practice of massage.  The request was posted on the two largest news groups, in America Online, which communicate with people interested in the subject of professional bodywork. The first group is the Paracelsus newsgroup which has existed for about three years, and reaches several thousand health professionals throughout North America, Europe, South America, Israel, Australia etc. One must be a professional to subscribe to Paracelsus. 

The second group for which the message was  posted is the only general newsgroup on Alternative Health listed by AOL.  Alternative Health chose AOL because it is the largest computer service in the world with six million subscribers. In a typical week, the  AOL Alternative Health newsgroup has almost two thousand notes posted. This implies that it may reach tens of thousands of people throughout the world.  Many famous names in the holistic health, medical and bodywork fields regularly post notes in both these groups. 

Only two replies to this were received. One reply was not concerned with harm associated with massage. The second reply commented as follows:

"What other PROOF do you need? My professional liability insurance is only $99.00 per year. If massage wasn't safe, the insurance would be a lot more. Now you may have a point though. The medical establishment has discovered massage, bodywork, energy work and holistic health, etc. Once big businesses get into it, there will be problems as the bottom line becomes more important than healing. At $40.00 an hour I am satisfied with two clients a day. When massage becomes assembly line, quality will probably go out the window. Perhaps we don't hurt people because we take the time to be with them, we are 'in touch,' we care about our clients."

Comments from state officials

who regulate massage

State officials in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Washington, and Texas reported that they were unaware of research which indicates that state regulation of massage  results in more competent massage therapists, and/or protects the public from harm.4  Similar information was reported by Deborah Worrad in the Canadian Province of Ontario which requires a 2200-hour training.5

There's no evidence of harm

for shiatsu

The authors of a report entitled Zoster after shiatsu massage  in The  Lancet, a British medical journal, speculated that the "causal link" between zoster and shiatsu in a 64-year-old woman  may be "coincidental." This is not convincing evidence of harm.4

They're still waiting

In 1994, Carlson and Schatz published a request for information indicating that state massage laws protect the pubic from harm by incompetent massage therapists.7 They  are still waiting for the first reply.

Since massage does not cause harm,

why license massage therapists

to prevent harm?

The fact that there have been so few attempts to ascertain the incidence of injury by massage therapists is prima facia  evidence that such harm is at most minimal. If injury were a serious problem, there would be many reports about how frequently these injuries occur, the nature of the injuries, how serious they are, and what training the massage therapists who caused the injuries had.

The only reason the massage literature lacks such reports is that, if injuries by massage therapists occur, they are rare and certainly not serious. Finally, consumer protection agencies are not lobbying state legislators to enact laws to protect the public from harm by bodyworkers. In states which do not have licensure, the courts are not burdened with personal injury claims by bodyworkers' clients.

These considerations raise two important question, From what harm are state massage laws needed to protect the public?  And, If there is no harm, why do these laws exist?

References

1. Beck, R.L. An Interpretation of Florida's Massage Law. Massage. Issue 55. pp. 116-117. May/June 1995.

2. Beck, R.L. What's in a Name? Title Registration vs. Practice Act. Massage. Issue 57. pp. 94-98. Sept/Oct 1995.

3. Alexander, D. How safe is massage?  Newsletter of the Saskachewan Massage Therapist Association. 5(1):13-14, April 1993. Also  see: Schatz, A. Some thoughts and questions about the $3,000,000 National Certification Examination. One man's point of view. Spiritual Massage Ministry Newsletter. 2(1):1-5, 1996.

4. Carlson, K., Barbera, R.A., and Schatz, A. The public doesn't need state regulation of massage ... So who does want it and why?  Massage & Bodywork Quarterly. pp. 83-86. Fall 1993.

5. Worrad, Deborah. Registrar of the Board of Directors of Masseurs. Ontario, Canada. Personal communication. July 26, 1993.

6. Carlson, K. Mailbox. Letter to the Editor.  Massage & Bodywork Quarterly. 9(4):46. Fall 1993.

7 Carlson, K., and Schatz, A. Letter to the Editor. Massage. Issue 48. March/April 1994.u

"THERE'S SOMETHING ROTTEN

IN" ONTARIO

Ontario's  2200-hour training requirement is based on the possibility  of  harm, which Alexander reviewed.1 Ontario assumes that "The development of [its] 2200-hour curriculum, which is taught by all schools of massage, and the registration examinations to evaluate competency have clearly resulted in more competent therapists."  That cause/effect relationship is not clear at all.

 In reply to an inquiry for research which indicates that regulation of massage results in more competent massage therapists, protects the public from harm, or is advantageous in any other way, Deborah Worrad (Registrar of the Board of Directors of Masseurs in the Province of Ontario, who provided the information quoted above), replied, "The Board has not conducted specific research and therefore does not have hard data on the topics to which you referred."2 This indicates that Ontario merely assumes  that its 2200-hour training protects the public from harm. It has no evidence that its 2200-hour training actually does protect the public from harm.

That assumption is invalid for two reasons. First, Alexander's above-mentioned database survey did not uncover a single case of injury by a massage therapist.1 The overwhelming majority of massge therapists have considerably less than Ontario's 2200-hour training. Some are self-taught. Alexander also concluded that massage is safe.3

Secondly, the two-year research project in the Province of Quebec, which is adjacent to the Province of Ontario, also failed to uncover a single case of injury by a massage therapist. For this reason, Quebec does not regulate massage. This decision in Quebec was based on research. The decision in Ontario to require a 2200-hour training to protect the public was based on an unjustified assumption.

References

1. Alexander, D. Professionalism and licensure in massage. Massage & Bodywork Quarterly. pp. 77-80. Fall 1994.

2. Worrad, Deborah. Registrar of the Board of Directors of Masseurs. Ontario, Canada. Personal communication. July 26, 1993.

3. Alexander, D. How safe is massage?  Newsletter of the Saskachewan Massage Therapist Association. 5(1):13-14, April 1993.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN THE POSSIBILITY AND

PROBABILITY OF HARM

The comparison of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec revealed  that the decision to regulate massage in  Ontario was based on the possibility  of harm, whereas the decision not to regulate massage in Quebec was based on the probability of harm. It is important to understand the difference between possibility  and probability  in order to understand why diametrically opposite decisions were made to regulate massage in Ontario and Quebec, despite the fact that massage therapists cause no harm in both provinces. 

Possibility may be directly or inversely related to probability. Something which has the possibility of occurring may have a high or low probability of happening. For example, a serious earthquake is possible everywhere. However, the probability of that occurring is high in certain areas and minimal elsewhere. Possibility provides qualitative information. Probability provides quantitative information, which is a more reliable indicator of risk.

There is a potential for harm by massage. This means that injury may occur. How likely that is to happen is another matter. If  the probability, is high, many people may be injured. If the probability is low or zero, few or no people may be injured.

Another important factor which must be considered is validation of the cause of injury. If clients claim they have been injured by massage therapists, it is necessary that competent individuals ascertain whether the alleged injuries were indeed caused by massage. If the injuries did result from massage, the next important question is, "How many people have to be injured and how serious do the injuries have to be to justify the need for licensure to protect the public from that harm?"

If injury does occur to any significant extent, it should be easy to detect because there is a possibility of harm, there are so many massage therapists, and so many massages are given. Let us assume there are 200,000  massage therapists in the United States. This includes individuals who are trained in accredited and non-accredited schools, who are self-taught, who have and have not taken the National Certification Examination, and who are and are not state-credentialled.

Let us further assume that these massage therapists give an average of five massages per week. This amounts to 1,000,000 massages a week and 52,000,000 massages a year. Let us now assume that one in every 10,000 massages causes injury. This amounts to 5,200 injuries a year. It is inconceivable that, if even half that many injuries occurred, many people would not be aware of them, as they are aware of the benefits of massage. Also, the literature, which has innumerable reports on the benefits of massage, would also have reports on the incidence and nature of the injuries.

Massage therapists are by far the most numerous group of bodyworkers. If  injuries occur, they would be most numerous and most likely to be reported for massage. Our research  indicates that there is little if any risk of harm associated with massage. We therefore conclude that state licensure is not needed to protect the public from harm by massage therapists. If that is true for massage, it is also true for other kinds of bodywork which have far fewer practitioners. 

THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC IS A MODEL

FOR "HOW TO DO IT RIGHT"

LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP

The Provence of Quebec is truly unique. It conducted a comprehensive, well-designed two-year research project to ascertain whether massage therapists caused harm. This was done to obtain information which was needed to decide whether massage should be regulated to protect the public. Because its research revealed that not one person had been harmed, it decided that regulation of massage was unnecessary.

We have no evidence that the Provence of Ontario and states in the U.S., which have licensing (practice) acts, allegedly to protect the public from harm, conducted the the kind of preliminary research which the Provence of Quebec did. Instead, it appears that they enacted laws to regulate massage without knowing whether injury occurred; and, if so, to what extent, prior to the enactment of their laws. In other words, they simply assumed  that the public needed to be protected form harm by incompetent massage therapists.

Massage therapists do no harm in Ontario with its 2200-hour required training and in Quebec where some massage therapists have as little as 120 hours of training. The latter is only 6% of the training required in Ontario. From this information, one can only conclude that a 2200-hour training is not required to protect the public from harm? There is likewise no research which justifies the 500 and more hours of training, which many massage schools in the United States require, to comply with state liecnsure (practice) acts.

So many different numbers of required hours of training, which all allegedly protect the public from harm, is prima facia evidence that numbers such as 500 and 2200 are simply picked out of thin air, and then rationalized as necessry to protect the public from harm. How can all these trainings, with so many different numbers of required hours, all be the right ones to protect the public from harm? If Ontario's 2200 hours are needed to protect the  publiic from harm, are the 500-hour trainings in the U.S. be only about 23% as effective? This is how rediculous these numbers are because people have simply picked them out of thin air. 

The well-designed research in the Province of Quebec is convincing evidence that (a) there is no justification for requiring any specific number of hours of training to protect the pubic from harm, (b) the practice of massage should not be regulated because there is no harm from which the pubic needs to be protected, and (c) regulation does not benefit the public in any other way.

Money is the root of all evil.

Since state regulation of massage doesn't benefit the public, whom or what does it benefit?  Regulation benefits massage schools because they make  more money when more hours of training are required. Other agencies, such as the National Certification Examination, make more money when more states are regulated. Is "making money" the real reason why state licensing laws were enacted? If "making money" is not the reason why these laws exist, what is?

STATE LICENSING (PRACTICE) ACTS ARE

INAPPROPRIATE FOR MASSAGE

BECAUSE THERE'S NO HARM

An important report Reforming Health Care Workforce Regulation, Policy Considerations for the 21st Century,  was issued in December, 1995, by the Taskforce on Health Care Workforce Regulation.*  The Pew Health Professions Commission "charged the Taskforce ... to identify and explore how regulation protects the public's health and to propose new approaches to health care worksforce regulation to better serve the public's interest."

One of the "policy options" which the Report recommends "for state consideration" is to "grant title protection without accompanying scope of practice acts to some professions" Practice acts" refer to licensure which is "permission granted by government to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful" "Title protection," also known as "right-to-title" acts, is "often referred to as 'state' certification... State 'certification' regulates the use of a specific occupational title... but does not provide a service monopoly; anyone may deliver the service, but only those actually certified may use a protected title."

The Report specifically recommends that "title protection... would be appropriate for professions (e.g., massage therapy) which provide services which are not especially risky to consumers." This implies that massage may be risky, but not "especially risky."

What degree of risk is implied? How many people have to be injured and how serious do the injuries have to be for massage therapy to be "risky" and "especially risky?" The Report does not provide this information. However, our research does provide convincing evidence that massage therapists do  no harm. This means that massage therapy  is not even "risky" for the consumer.

If there is no risk of harm, licensure (practice) acts are inappropriate and unnecessary; and should be replaced by title protection laws. If state licensing (practice) acts are not needed to protect the public from harm, then title protection acts are also not needed to protect the public from harm.

However, title protection may protect some massage therapists. Title protection discourages "turf battles" and "border wars" in which other  professions attempt to prevent massage therapists from using certain bodywork modalities. Title protection also enables massage therapists to avoid the inconvenience of complying with local ordinances which vary considerably. Finally, a title protection act is advantageous because it is voluntary. Massage therapists are not prohibited from doing massage, but they cannot use the title massage therapist unless they are certified by the state. With title protection, there is no monopoly control of the massage profession. Licensure (practice) laws create monopoly control because they require all massage therapists to be licensed.

Massage therapists who have been paying money for many years to comply with state massage laws which are practice acts  have been paying for something that is not an appropriate way for states to serve the public.

*Reforming Health Care Workforce Regulation , Policy Considerations for the 21st CenturyReport of the Taskforce on Health Care Workforce Regulation.  The Pew Health Professions Commission. Center for Health Professions. University of California. San Francisco. December 1995.

IS MASSAGE MORE DANGEROUS

THAN DRIVING A CAR?*

Albert Schatz and Karen Carlson

"We can now see ... the difficulty that may arise in the attempt to persuade others to accept a new ...  way of reasoning.  We cannot convince others of it by formal argument for, so long as we argue within their framework, we can never induce them to abandon it. Demonstration must be supplemented, therefore, by forms of persuasion which can induce a conversion.  The refusal to enter on the opponent's way of arguing must be justified by making it appear altogether unreasonable."  -  Michael Polanyi

Is massage more dangerous than driving a car? If not, why do some states require everybody to have a training of 500 hours or more before taking a test to do massage, but allow everybody to decide for himself how much practice he needs before taking a test to drive a  car?

 No one has ever been killed or crippled by a massage therapist. But thousands of people are killed and crippled every year by people who drive cars. Driving a car is therefore much more dangerous to the public than giving a massage. The public is involuntarily exposed to millions of people who drive cars. But each person, who wants a massage, has contact with only a few massage therapists to whom she goes voluntarily. 

Sate legislator are not enacting laws to require everybody to take a 500-hour training, in a state-accredited driving school, in order to be licensed to drive a car.  Why then do states require everybody to take a 500-hour training in a state-accredited massage school in order to be licensed to do massage, which does not harm anybody?

There is a valid performance test (a road test) for objectively evaluating an individual's competence to drive a car. But the quality of a massage cannot be objectively evaluated.1 For this reason, there is no valid performance test to objectively evaluate the competence of a massage therapist. 

Everybody knows that some people  develop enough competence to pass a road test by practicing driving for different periods of time with friends and  family members as their teachers. Others learn to drive by enrolling in a driving school. But the law does not require everybody to learn to drive by taking a 500-hour training in a state-accredited driving school.

As we have pointed out elsaewhere,1 there is no legitimate justification for a state to require massage therapists to take a training of  500 hours or specify any other number of hours in a state-accredited massage school.  Nobody (not even the state!) knows how many hours of training each individual should have to give a good massage because the quality of a massage cannot be objectively evaluated.

That is why there is no research which provides convincing evidence that a 500-hour training produces massage therapists who are more competent than those with less than 500 hours of training, including those who are self-taught. There is also no research which provides convincing evidence that graduates of state-accredited massage schools are more competent than graduates of massage schools that are not state-accredited.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary (and there is no such evidence), one is justified in concluding that self-taught massage practitioners who have never taken the National Certification Test and are not state-certified are just as competent as massage therapists who are state-certified because they have taken a 500-hour training in a state-accredited massage school and have passed the National Certification Examination.

There is another important difference between driving a car and massage. Everybody would agree that the public needs as much protection as possible against incompetent drivers. But the public does not need state massage laws to protect people against incompetent massage therapists because the probability of injury from massage is negligible. In any event, state laws cannot provide that protection because those laws have no valid performance test which enables them to differentiate between competent and incompetent massage therapists.2   

Common sense, logic and research3,4 inexorably lead to the conclusion that there is no legal justification for a state to require everybody to take a 500-hour training in a state-accredited school, pass the written National Certification Test and be state-credentialed to do massage.

Conclusions

Why do state massage laws have requirements which cannot be justified. If requirements cannot be justified, what useful purpose do they serve? If requirements serve no useful purpose, how do laws which have useless requirements benefit the public? If laws do not benefit the public, why do we have them?  If we don't know why we have such laws, why are they not repealed? If such  laws are not repealed, is it because they serve special interest groups? If so, what are these special interest groups? 

References 

1. Carlson, K., Barbera, R. A., and Schatz. A. Is state regulation of massage illegal?  Massage & Bodywork Quarterly. pp. 42-52. Fall 1993.

2. Schatz, A. and Carlson, K. The public does not need state regulation of massage. So, who does want it and why?  Massage & Bodywork Quarterly. pp. 83-86. Fall 1993.

3. Schatz, A., and Carlson, K. Research on state regulation of massage is needed. Journal of Health Frontiers. 1(3):1-7. 1993.

4. Carlson, K., and Schatz, A. State regulation of massage is illegal and should be repealed.  Journal of Health Frontiers. 1(5):1--4, 1993.

* This article is reprinted, with minor changes, from the Journal of Health Frontiers. 1(5):1-4, 1993

AN APPROPRIATE EXAMINATION

FOR MASSAGE COMPETENCY

Albert Schatz and Mary Brewster

We believe that in order to understand what we are doing and why, it is often important to understand what we are not doing and why not. From this perspective, we shall discuss two things that are important in the certification of massage therapists - what is to be certified and how is that done. The only meaningful standard for evaluating a massage therapist is her competence in terms of on-the-job performance.* If that competence is not acceptable (acceptable to whom  and how  is important and will be discussed later), what else has any practical  significance?

Industrial quality controls do

 not apply to massage

The National Certification Examination is a written test which does not evaluate competence in terms of on-the-job performance. The problem with this kind of examination and some of the requirements of state massage laws is that they are attempts to apply inappropriate methods of quality control to massage. For this kind of bodywork, quality control by a written test or a third party is inapplicable.  

Massage is not a commodity like radios, cars, and refrigerators which are produced on assembly lines to meet objective quality control standards of performance. This kind of industrial quality control is useful only for products that are manufactured to be as identical as possible, and for which there are objective criteria to evaluate their performance. If a sufficiently large number of such products do not meet the criteria for quality control; that is, if they don't work properly, adjustments are made in their design, production or both. This is why the quality; i.e., the performance, of products such as cars, refrigerators, and radios, can be evaluated independently of their owners, unless their owners damage them by improper use or otherwise.

A massage cannot be evaluated independently of its owner;  that is, the individual who is massaged. No two massages are identical. A massage therapist does not give the same massage every time, even to the same client. Every massage is unique, original, creative, and different. In these respects, a massage is comparable to a unique, original, creative work of art. There are no impersonal, objective quality control standards that can measure a massage or the work of an artist. This is why industrial quality control criteria cannot be used to certify the competence, in terms of on-the-job performance, of a massage therapist and an artist.

Put in other words, massages are not standardized, uniform products which are manufactured by massage therapists to meet impersonal, objective criteria of quality control. On the contrary, the quality of a massage is an intimately personal, qualitatively subjective feeling  which cannot be evaluated independently of its owner;  that is, the individual who received the massage. Several people can jointly or sequentially own the same radio, automobile, and refrigerator,  but that is not possible with a massage.

Only one person, in the entire world of Einstein's time and space, experiences each massage. That one person is therefore the sole recipient; that is, the sole owner  of that massage. No one else has experienced or ever will experience that massage. So, who, other than the recipient of that massage, is qualified to evaluate it and the competence, in terms of on-the-job performance, of the massage therapist who provided it. No written test given to a massage therapist is an acceptable substitute for the evaluation by the individual who was massaged. This is why people do not choose massage therapists on the basis of their National Certification Examination test scores.

Massage is a process which provides each individual with a personal experience  - like a concert, play,  opera, dancing, and a loving caress provide. These are not standardized, material products like cars, radios, and refrigerators. That is why there are no state law requirements and no national certification examinations for playwrights, composers, dancers, and those who give loving caresses. For these reasons, industrial quality control criteria for standardized products are not appropriate for massage and massage therapists. 

An appropriate test for competency

The certification examination we prefer is not a written test but a test for competence in terms of on-the-job performance. It has been successfully used for decades by massage therapists and other bodyworkers. It has no prerequisites. Anyone can take it. The test is not controversial because it is voluntary, self-regulating, and self-enforcing.  It is graded by people who are eminently qualified to evaluate the test results and decide whether the massage therapists, who take the tests, meet their standards of performance.  

This certification examination is a massage. The act of giving a massage is the act of taking this certification test. The two occur simultaneously.  Every massage is a certification test. Every person who gets a massage is a certifier. Every massage therapist is tested every time she gives a massage. In this way, massage therapists are tested and certified frequently, by different individuals, often on an almost daily basis, sometimes several times a day. The massage therapist doesn't pay to take any of these tests. Instead, she gets paid by each client on whom she works. Each client evaluates the massage and, in so doing, certifies or decertifies the massage therapist. She does that by scheduling or not scheduling another appointment with that massage therapist.

This certification examination worked well before states had massage laws. It still works well in those state which do not yet have massage laws. For this kind of certification, massage therapists do not have to pay fees for a state credential, for a 500-hour or more training in a state-approved school, and for the National Certification Examination.

Nothing's perfect

The only "inadequacy" (if you want to call it that) in the certification examination described above is that states, massage schools, agencies which market tests, and some organizations that provide continuing education credits won't make money because massage therapists don't have to pay any fees to do massage.

Conclusion

One respondent to Alan Tillotson's internet request, whom we have quoted on page two, has provided us with a most appropriate ending.

"What other PROOF do you need [that massage causes no harm]? My professional liability insurance is only $99.00 per year. If massage wasn't safe, the insurance would be a lot more. Now you may have a point though. The medical establishment has discovered massage, bodywork, energy work, and holistic health, etc. Once big businesses get into it, there will be problems as the bottom line becomes more important than healing. At $40.00 an hour, I am satisfied with two clients a day. When massage becomes assembly line, quality will probably go out the window.

"Perhaps we don't hurt people because we take the time to be with them, we are 'in touch,' we care about our clients." 

 * Carlson, K., Barbera, R. A., and Schatz. A. Is state regulation of massage illegal?  Massage & Bodywork Quarterly. pp. 42-52. Fall 1993.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF

SELF-SACRIFICE

The ethic of reverence for life requires that in some way or other and in something or other we should all live as men for men. To those who have no opportunity for human relations in their ordinary work, and who have nothing else to give, it suggests that they should sacrifice some of their own time and leisure, even when they have very little of either. Take up some side line, it says to them, some quite insignificant, perhaps even secret, side line. Open your eyes and look for some man, or some work for the sake of men, which needs a little time, a little friendship, a  little sympathy, a little sociability, a little human toil. Perhaps it is a lonely person, or an embittered person, or an invalid, or some unfortunate, inefficient, to whom you can be something. It may be an old man, or it may be a child. Or some good work is in want of volunteers who will devote a free evening to it. Who can reckon up all  the ways in which that priceless fund of impulse, man, is capable of exploitation! He is needed in every nook and corner. Therefore search and see if there is not some place where you may invest your humanity. - Albert Schweitzer

THANATOPSIS

So live that when  thy summons come to join the innumerable caravan which moves to that mysterious realm where each shall take his place in the silent halls of death, thou go not like the quarry slave, scourged to his dungeon, but sustained and soothed by an unfaltering trust approach  thy grave like one who wraps the drapes of his couch about him and lies down to pleasant dreams.- William Cullen Bryant

 I consider myself a Hindu, Christian, Moslem, Jew, Buddhist, and Confusian. - Mohandas Gandhi

[Home] [Massage Law] [Journal] [Special Issues] [Bios] [Spiritual Massage] [Massage Humor]