The 655,200 reasons why Minnesota does not need to regulate massage therapists are 655,200 massages which were given in Minnesota last year. If allegedly inadequately trained massage therapists have caused serious harm, more than half a million massages should have revealed that harm.
Whence cometh
the number 655,200?
The Georgia Chapter of AMTA told their senators there were about 1000 massage therapists in Georgia, and each one did an average of 20 massages a week. The Minnesota Chapter of AMTA has about 400 members, most of whom do massage. But there are other massage therapists who are not members of AMTA
In 1997, the total population of Minnesota (4,685,000) was 37% less than the total population of Georgia (7,486.000). It is reasonable to assume that Minnesota has 630 massage therapists because 630 is 37% less than the 1000 massage therapists in Georgia.
If each of these 630 unregulated massage therapists gave an average of 20 massages per week, as massage therapists did in Georgia, that amounts to a total of 12,600 massages a week and 655,200 massages a year in Minnesota.
Additional evidence that Minnesota does not need to regulate massage therapists is provided by Coalition for State Regulation of Massage Therapists and Oriental Bodyworkers. This is the Coalition that has been promoting state regulation.
The fact that the Coalition has not been able to provide well-documented evidence that serious harm has actually occurred is good evidence that there's no such harm. And there's no need for state regulation to protect the public from harm which does not occur.
There's no harm in Georgia and
in the Canadian Province of Quebec
To evaluate whether a profession or business should be regulated, one of the things the Georgia Occupational Regulation Review Council has to do is determine "Whether the unregulated practice of an occupation may harm or endanger the health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the state, and whether the potential for harm is recognizable and not remote."
The Georgia Chapter of AMTA submitted undocumented allegations of harm to support a bill to regulate massage therapists in order to allegedly protect the public from harm. The Georgia senators rejected that undocumented allegations. They did their own research, and found that no harm had actually occurred. They therefore concluded:
"There is no documented danger of actual harm to the public." And "The potential for harm to the public appears to be remote and would not be alleviated by licensing."
The Canadian Province of Quebec conducted a two-year research project to find out if massage therapists caused harm. They found that massage therapists, regardless of their training, did not harm anybody.
Georgia and Quebec do not regulate massage therapists because massage therapists don't harm people.
Since there is no harm in Georgia and Quebec, why would there be any harm in Minnesota?
Since Georgia and Quebec do not regulate massage therapists, why should Minnesota regulate massage therapists?
There's no harm in the
states surrounding Georgia
Georgia senators found that there were 626 complaints in Florida for the 3-year period of 1993 through 1996. The nature of each complaint was recorded. None of these complaints involved a client who had been injured by a massage therapist.
In all the states surrounding Georgia, there was only one case of possible harm in an estimated 19,240,000 massages. Do we need state regulation to protect the public from so little harm?
$$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$
If the average cost of a massage was $35.00, Minnesota's unregulated massage therapists earned about $23,000,000 last year by doing 655.200 massages . Their clients must have been quite satisfied.
Who wants state regulation
in Minnesota, and why?
Many of those who want state regulation in Minnesota are associated with schools and national organizations that will benefit financially from state regulation.
The Coalition for State Regulation of Massage Therapists and Oriental Bodyworkers has been peddling the alleged need for state regulation to protect the public from harm. The component organizations of the Coalition are the Minnesota Chapter of AMTA, the Minnesota Chapter of AOBTA, something called the Coalition for Fair Legislation, the Lake Superior College Massage Therapy Program, the Minneapolis School of Massage and Bodywork, the Northern Lights School of Massage and Bodywork, and Sister Rosalind Geffre's School of Professional Massage.
No consumer protection agency has been lobbying state legislators to enact laws to regulate massage therapists to protect the public from harm.
The Minnesota Touch Movement Network (MTMN), formerly known as the Minnesota Therapeutic Massage Network, opposes the Coalition for State Regulation of Massage Therapists and Oriental Bodyworkers. The MTMN supports a bill proposed by the Minnesota Natural Health Legal Reform Project. This is The Complementary and Alternative Health Care Bill (HF 537 or SF 689) which is concerned with consumer access and protection.
The Coalition for State Regulation of Massage Therapists and Oriental Bodyworkers is allegedly concerned with consumer protection. It is therefore surprising that this Coalition has not been involved with The Complementary and Alternative Health Care Bill, and does not support this bill.
The Coalition's evidence
of harm is worthless
The Coalition for State Regulation of Massage Therapists and Oriental Bodyworkers allegedly has information about complaints against practitioners in regulated states. Their 40 or more complaints per state per year allegedly include physical injuries, emotional harm, and fraud.
The Coalition does not tell us how many complaints were considered justified, and how many were considered unjustified on the basis of the evidence that was submitted.
The Coalition does not tell us how many of the justified complaints involved physical injuries, how many involved emotional harm, and how many involved fraud.
The Coalition does not tell us what disciplinary or corrective actions were taken in those complaints which were considered justified.
The fact that a complaint of physical harm has been filed means only that the complaint was filed. It does not mean that the harm was verified. Even if the harm was verified, that does not mean, in and of itself, that the massage therapist involved actually caused the harm.
Even if the massage therapist actually caused the harm, we need more information to evaluate the complaint. We have to know the nature of the harm. Was the harm ephemeral soreness, or was it a serious injury? If it was a serious injury, how serious was it? Did the client require medical treatment? If so, what was the treatment, who provided it, and when?
We also have to know whether the client filed a personal injury claim? If so, was the claim paid with or without litigation. The fact that a claim has been paid without litigation does not prove that an injury occurred, that it was serious, and that the massage therapists was responsible for the injury. Insurance companies pay some so-called "nuisance value" claims because it is less costly for them to do that than to pay attorneys to litigate.
We need comparable information about the Coalition's complaints allegedly involving emotional harm and fraud.
The Coalition is grasping
at straws
The Coalition for State Regulation of Massage Therapists and Oriental Bodyworkers has not provided any well-documented evidence that any serious harm has actually occurred. Instead it refers to what it calls the "potential for harm." The "potential for harm" is not harm that has actually occurred.
Common sense suggests that the Coalition focused on the potential for harm because it has no well-documented evidence that any harm has actually occurred. If the Coalition had well-documented evidence of harm that had actually occurred, it would certainly have presented that evidence instead of the following potentials for harm.
Potential for Physical Harm. The Coalition claims that when practitioners have little or no training, injury may result from the use of techniques in instances when they are contraindicated, from the improper use of techniques, and from the failure to observe and assess problems which should be referred to and evaluated by the appropriate health care provider.
The Coalition gives the following examples: Varicose veins: Working in these areas can loosen a blood clot (embolism). Pregnancy: Incorrect client positioning can interrupt blood flow to both mother and baby. Carotid artery: Pressure by the therapists can damage a mechanism that influences blood pressure and cardiac output.
Potential for emotional harm. The Coalition claims that practitioners with little or no training may be unprepared to respond in a manner that maintains client safety when touch evokes a client's emotions that are related to form sexual abuse or other trauma
Potential for economic harm. The Coalition claims that consumers have had no practical means of determining the extent of preparation of a practitioner and therefore have paid the market price, often without knowing the practitioner's qualification level.
The Coalition did not learn
the Georgia lesson
The Coalition is concerned with the potential for harm. The Georgia senators were also concerned with the potential for harm. But the two groups did different things. The Georgia senators decided to find out "whether the unregulated practice of an occupation may harm or endanger the health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the state, and whether the potential for harm is recognizable and not remote."
The senators found no harm had actually occurred, and concluded, "There is no documented danger of actual harm to the public." And "The potential for harm to the public appears to be remote and would not be alleviated by licensing." They therefore did not vote on the bill to regulate massage therapists to protect the public from harm.
The Coalition, like the Georgia senators, did not find any evidence that harm had actually occurred. But then the Coalition did what the senators did not do. The Coalition decided that state regulation is needed to protect the public from harm, not because any harm had actually occurred, but because there is only a potential for harm.
I asked Gayle Burdick, Sr. Rosalind Geffre, Sheila Sweeney, and Jackson Petersburg, who are promoting state regulation of massage in Minnesota, for well-documented evidence of harm that has actually occurred. They have not replied to my written requests for that information. I therefore assume they have no well-documented evidence of harm which has actually occurred.
All the so-called potential for physical harm, emotional harm, and fraud, that the Minnesota Coalition is concerned about, also occurs in Georgia and in the Canadian Province of Quebec. But there are no well-documented reports of harm which has actually occurred in Georgia and Quebec. If these potentials for harm do not result in harm in Georgia and Quebec, why would they result in harm in Minnesota?
If Georgia and Quebec do not need to regulate their massage therapists to protect the pubic from harm, why should Minnesota regulate its massage therapists to protect the public from harm?
The inability of the Coalition to provide well-documented evidence that harm has actually occurred, is good evidence that state regulation of massage therapists is not needed to protect the public from harm.
MORE THAN HALF A MILLION
MASSAGES WITH NO HAR
Last year about 630 massage therapists with a wide variety of training gave more than half a million massages in Minnesota. Surely that is a sufficiently large sample to reveal whether the potential for harm, which the Coalition is so concerned about, has manifested itself as real harm.
I assume the Coalition looked for harm in complaints filed in other states because it was unable to find any well-documented harm associated with massage in Minnesota, despite the fact that over half a million massages were given in Minnesota last year.
If the Coalition does not have any well-documented cases of harm that has actually occurred, common sense tells us that harm does not occur. So, why is the Coalition promoting state regulation to protect the public from harm which does not occur?
Does the Collation expect
to be taken seriously?
People in Minnesota are more likely to be struck by lightning than harmed by massage therapists.
They are also more likely to be bitten by dogs than harmed by massage therapist
Why doesn't the Coalition tell us how many allegedly inadequately trained massage therapists have to harm how many people, and how serious that harm has to be to justify the alleged need for state regulation to protect the public from that harm?
Why doesn't the Coalition tell us how many allegedly inadequately trained massage therapists have caused well-documented physical harm, and the nature and seriousness of that physical harm?
Why doesn't the Coalition tell us how many allegedly inadequately trained massage therapists have caused well-documented emotional harm, and the nature and seriousness of that emotional harm?
Why doesn't the Coalition tell us how many allegedly inadequately trained massage therapists have caused well-documented "economic harm," and the nature and seriousness of that "economic harm"?
How does the Coalition explain why the cost of professional liability insurance is the same in states which do and do not regulate massage therapists?
How does the Coalition explain why the cost of professional liability insurance has decreased? In 1984, the wholesale cost of $1,000,000 coverage for massage therapists was $65.00 a year. In 1998, the wholesale cost for $2,00,000 coverage is only $32.50 a year.
I challenge the Coalition to provide well-documented evidence that massage therapists are more competent and provide better quality massages in states which regulate massage therapists than in states which do not..
I challenge the Coalition to provide well-documented evidence that there is more client satisfaction in states which regulate massage therapists than in states which do not.
A lesson about harm
It is surprising that the Coalition apparently expects its allegations of what it calls the "potential for harm" to be taken seriously. Contraindi-cations are conditions which predispose to harm. However, what is important from a practical point of view is not the predisposition to harm, but whether well-documented harm has actually occurred.
It's necessary to use common sense to identify nonsense in order to understand the compulsive/obsessive promotion of state regulation of massage therapists to allegedly protect the public from harm.
Common sense tell us that harm is something which has actually occurred. If it has not actually occurred, it's not harm. Conditions that predispose people to harm are not harm.
The risk of harm tells us how likely conditions, that predispose people to harm, may be expected to actually result in harm. The risk of harm is determined by how much harm has already occurred, and how serious that harm has been. The risk of a particular kind of harm ranges from zero to negligible if there is no well-documented evidence that harm has actually occurred.
Obviously there is no need for a law to protect the public from harm which does not occur, or if the risk of that harm occurring ranges from zero to negligible.
The real world of massage is
not a Rorschach ink blot
Those who promote state regulation to protect the public from harm see harm in a Rorschach ink blot. They then assume that state regulation is needed to protect the public from that harm. But an ink blot is an ink blot. It is not a massage. The harm they see in the Rorschach ink blot does not occur in the real world of massage. Therefore, the need for state regulation also does not occur in the real world of massage.
Additional information about harm and state regulation is in reports in the Massage Law Newsletter on the internet <http://www.healingandlaw.com> |