The comment period for the second draft of the Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge ended a week ago. I’ve made comments on both drafts, and I hope you have too.
A number of my own comments were in regard to the amount of energy work-related statements that were included. I don’t think most of it belongs there. Before anyone gets their chakras in a twist at me, let me state that Healing Touch was the very first class I ever took, back in 1993. I went on to follow that up with classes in Reiki, polarity, and a few other energy modalities. I’ve also studied and used Shiatsu for years. I have in fact in the past taught a lot of Reiki classes myself, but I’ve decided not to teach it anymore. I blogged that decision on my FB page a few months ago. Some of these scientific minds around here are rubbing off on me.
I honor anyone who lays their hands on another, or directs energy at another, with the intent for the highest good to take place, whether that’s to heal, to comfort, or to ease someone’s passing. I don’t have any objections to energy work, either giving or receiving. I just think it’s a separate body of knowledge.
Yes, I know that plenty of massage therapists use energy work, not only from my own past experience, but also from spending a few hours surfing through the approved provider pages on the NCB’s website recently. It appears that there’s more energy-related classes than hardcore bodywork and/or evidence-based classes. Obviously there’s a demand, or that wouldn’t be the case.
There are two sides to this equation. One of them is that some major teaching hospitals, including Duke University, Stanford, UCLA at Berkely, Sloan-Kettering, and dozens more, are offering Reiki, Healing Touch or other energy work to patients. Another side is that we’ve had enough of a hard road just trying to get doctors to recognize the efficacy of massage, let alone something that can’t be measured and replicated; to some physicians, massage therapists being associated with anything remotely smacking of woo-woo can be sudden death to any thoughts of credibility or a referral relationship you might have had.
Where do you stand on this issue? Do you think energy work should be included in the MTBOK? Do you think it’s a separate body of knowledge, or can it be defined at all? Do you think it should be available as approved CE classes for massage therapists, or has that been a mistake? Inquiring minds want to know.
Peace & Prosperity,
Laura Allen
March 18th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
I’ve been doing energywork for 30 years, which led me to study spiritual healing cross-culturally for a doctorate in anthropology. Throughout human history, people have been laying their hands on one another for healing. I’m not one who regards this as ancient superstition; rather I see it as part of what it means to be human.
Laura, you mention Shiatsu and Polarity; in my state, these are included in the massage therapy regulations, so in this state they are considered part of the profession’s body of knowledge by law.
I am one of the massage therapists who offers energywork for oncology patients in hospitals. The patients generally report feelings of well-being and diminished pain, and sometimes simply feeling human again, after experiencing energywork and their docs tell me they’re pleased that the patients feel better.
The big study at Memorial Sloane Kettering, one of the most conservative hospitals in the world, includes using Reiki/light touch massage and other CAM treatments for 1290 oncology patients. This study showed patients’ symptom scores reduced by 50% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15336336). This is a indication that this kind of work is being taken seriously in conventional medicine regardless of the opinions of skeptics.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I suspect that not unlike the psychotherapy field, energy work will develop into a recognized treatment modality and one in which credentials and standards will be developed for.
It should be an interesting one to watch unfold given the diversity of beliefs and ideas surrounding energy work and what it is and can or can not do.
That said…back to the question posed…although I strongly feel that energy work is part of any type of bodywork and it is not possible to separate it in practical application. I think that it should not be part of massage, but rather a separate study. To give credit to the efficacy of energy work itself, separate from massage and vice versa. … See More
Did you know that there are far more scientific studies on energy work than on massage, yet massage is regulated in most states and provinces and energy work is not?
March 18th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Hmm, very good question. As someone who started with Reiki for 8 years before becoming a massage therapist, I happen to like it.
The MTBOK is a very difficult task – some of us prefer energy work, some prefer medical/orthopedic work, and still others prefer spa/wraps/facials/etc. Even within these major categories, Reiki is very different from Polarity which is different from Shiatsu – even though most would call all of them energy work. Craniosacral (and some others) claim to bridge from the medical/therapeutic to the energy work.
My opinion – as soon as we start to think about interacting with someone we are exchanging energy – so we all need to know something about energy work. Then we all have our “specialties” – which may require more of some things and less of others.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:57 am
I believe there should be some kind of separation of western and eastern practice. Eastern practices have been around much longer than western practices but when you do an autopsy you will find nerves, muscles, ligaments, etc.. you will NOT find any meridians. I also believe that all touch and human interaction can be extremely beneficial, especially during times of hardship and pain.
My biggest concern with energy work (in my state MN) is that it seems you can do a weekend seminar and start practicing this modality. Energy work and prayer work are sometimes associated together depending on where training is done, which to me is very powerfull for those who believe in it.
I once watched (NOW on PBS documentary) a western MD travel to study with a Chinese Master of acupuncture, who had studied this practice for many years. The western doctor tried to understand and feel what the master felt when “spinning” the needles to move the “chi” (energy) and after 4 years he still couldn’t feel the “chi”. He compared it to a fisherman. The real experienced fisherman can tell the difference between a bite and a snag. This only comes with many, many, years of practice.
I also believe within the medical community energy work with people suffering from cancer is much more accepted because there are doctors who believe massage could spread the cancer. There definately needs to be more study done in this area.
I myself know the benefits of neuromuscular therapy, and deep tissue massage because of a SCFE sustained at the age of 12 and a total hip replacement at the age of 38. I had tried all holistic treatments and the only treatment that hepled me was very deep and clinical massage.
This is why there should be room for all kinds of treatments because everyone has different issues and suffer from different problems and what works for one person, another person may need the complete opposite treatment.
And finally I truly believe you must try many different modalities until you find the ones that work the best for you! Nobody knows you better than YOU!!
Check out this study: http://www.health.am/ab/more/non-drug-techniques-reduce-pain/
March 19th, 2010 at 12:59 am
Energy work is a valid, tangible (to some) modality, yet is compromised by its inability to be scientifically measured. There is so much about life and energy we do NOT know, how can anyone begin to measure or regulate it?
Energy workers, IMO, should be left alone as far as regulation. How is it possible to regulate something invisible? How can you place a license on “intent?” People who seek out energy healers/workers usually do so out of their own “religious” beliefs, whether Christian, Wiccan, or so-called spiritual.
At most, manual therapists should be instructed on the importance of keeping their minds focused and clear during their work. To wander off “mentally” does the client a great injustice,as any distractions can hinder work in any field. It is impossible to remain aware of what affect is taking place in human tissue while contemplating an argument with our spouses during a session!
It IS a separate body of knowledge, but needs to be left alone in the MTBOK. Therapists use manual touch to manipulate/directly affect soft tissue. Energy work is something else, altogether.
March 19th, 2010 at 7:57 am
I also believe that bodywork and energy therapies can be quite beneficial, but am firmly on the side of separating massage and bodywork in professional terms. The body of knowledge, scope of practice, licensing, etc. for any profession are meant to define the profession, not to absolutely restrict the services provided in the business built by a licensed massage therapist. Even if MTBOK, SOP, etc. result in a strict definition of massage therapy, with educational requirements and licensing laws that do not include energy work, that doesn’t have mean that a licensed massage therapist can’t also practice energy therapy, as long as they also follow the guidelines for those practices, inform their clients, and promote themselves honestly. And while separating massage and bodywork might prevent a therapist whose training is largely in energy therapy from becoming licensed massage therapist, it does not have to prevent them from practicing energy work. Why hang on to the title “massage therapy” if that’s not truly the therapy provided? I would love to see a separate BOK, SOP and regulations for bodywork that will elevate and further validate those therapeutic practices.
In short, I think we need to make a distinction between the definition of a profession, and the menu of services provided. The bigger issue, in my opinion, is using MTBOK, SOP and regulation to educate consumers so that they can choose what they want or need with eyes wide open.
March 19th, 2010 at 9:19 am
While I believe in the efficacy of energy work, I don not believe it falls under the common definitions of massage there for should be a distinct entity. I have practice with many “dual licensed” massage therapists who perform massage or facials, massage and acupuncture, massage and nutrition ….. There is nothing stopping people from using more than one healing modality, but they should be taught and governed individually.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:37 am
The thing about light touch/energywork for people with cancer is no longer fear that massage could spread the cancer but that often ca patients have low platelet counts and so can easily be severely bruised and/or are on chemotherapy and meds that weaken the soft tissue to the point where massage can damage the muscles — plus the experience of medical trauma which calls for nurturing person-to-person compassionate care. Being a cancer survivor myself, I find that I’m somewhat more conservative than some LMTs who do oncology massage b/c I know first hand how easily a patient can be overstimulated on many levels. And being a trained massage therapist, I have refined palpation skills so I can still be working with the soft tissue whether I’m doing energy holds or MT strokes, so it’s perfectly appropriate to me that energywork is in the MTBOK. As for Eastern, NY State, for example, requires Eastern bodywork as part of training for licensure so with regard to state regs, Eastern needs to be in the MTBOK.
March 19th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Nice discussion.
It’s interesting here that many of the pro-integration posts come from people working in the oncology area.
Personally, I’m all for separating the two fields. This isn’t particularly out of a fear that massage will be tainted with “psuedo-scientific” belief structures, but rather because I see the two fields as being quite separate.
Massage as far as I’m concerned is all about manipulation of the soft-tissues of the body, whereas energetic work is all about influencing bio-energy through the use of intention. Sure we have some body-work modalities that sit somewhere in the middle of both of these, such as craniosacral (but is this massage anyway?).
I guess the big hole in my argument here is that if you consider eastern bodywork techniques as “massage”, then we’re clearly not talking about just soft-tissue manipulation as this is not the intention behind these techniques. It all depends on what you mean by massage. A colleague of mine has suggested that the massage therapy profession in New Zealand rebrands itself as Soft-tissue therapists partially to separate ourselves from the spectre of prostitution, but also so that we can more clearly define exactly who we are.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I guess my stand on it is: where does the public stand on it? That’s who we’re here to serve.
It seems to me that it would be easier for the public to understand massage (evidence based massage, tissue mmanipulation) as distinct from energy work, which has at it’s core an extremely different model of health and healing.
So if the Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge is being labelled just that it should narrow it’s scope, so that way a more accurate, authenitc and comprehensive body of knowledge could be produced for the Body of Knowledge of Energy Based Practitioners.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:52 am
I began my study of healing arts in the 1970s when I was introduced to various spiritual healing traditions. I also studied herbology and nutrition extensively before beginning a massage practice in the 1980s. Coming from a more esoteric background, I found that I craved the study of human anatomy and physiology, and the ground it provides for understanding my own body and health as well as my practice of massage and bodywork. My work in the development of Comfort Touch stems from years of study of Shiatsu/acupressure, and my efforts to bridge the language and understanding of energy based Asian bodywork with an awareness of modern scientific medicine.
I, too, have some concerns about the MTBOK’s emphasis and inclusion of energy work. From my experience I understand that many styles of energy work (and I have studied many) are based in various spiritual beliefs. I do believe everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but they must understand that they are, in fact, operating from a belief system. For example, one could say that human touch feels good, because of the way that the muscle is contacted, or the nervous system is affected; or one can say that human touch feels good because they are “channeling cosmic energy through their hands into the client.”
My concern is that bodyworkers need to explore the beliefs behind the language they use. Else, many of our current and prospective clients will be confused. More than a few people have made statements to me to this effect: “I didn’t understand what she was doing waving her hands around. I just came for a massage, and wondered when she was going to touch me.” As massage and bodyworkers, I do think we need to listen to our clients, and be careful to not impose beliefs on them.
No matter the belief — whether esoteric, scientific, eastern or western — I do think we can agree on the human need for connection and the value of communication through touch. I am sometimes concerned that energy workers are more absorbed in what they feel themselves, to the neglect of listening to or validating the experience or needs of the client.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Definitely separate.My main reason is a little different than most. I think Chinese Medicine and it’s cousins constitute a vast amount of knowledge that requires and deserves it’s own distinct area of study.The amount of info you get in massage school or in most massage textbooks is more of a distraction than a serious effort to teach a somewhat complex modality.My second reason is the lack of scientific credibility.I am a serious skeptic. I believe in giving value for value received and energy work is too conceptual to measure up.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Mary Rose, I agree that off the body energywork is not part of a massage therapist’s scope, but since energywork in one form or another, Asian or Western, is part of so many MTs’ activities — and the definition of a Body of Knowledge includes activities — it can’t be left out. And I do not agree that energyworkers are generally self absorbed.
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Hi Lisa & Mary,
I’ve definitely met energy workers that were arrogant, self-absorbed and mostly interested in convincing others that their own spiritual belief structure was somehow superior. I’ve also met energy workers who were fairly well-balanced, reflective practitioners. Egomaniacs exist in every field, although ironically enough, there do seem to be quite a few who get involved in spiritual practices such as energy work.
March 23rd, 2010 at 8:22 am
I must agree with David – I’ve known massage therapists of every caliber to be good at listening and humble, and I’ve known some that seem to believe they’ve seen it all and are the best. I’ve also seen the same of energy workers and in fact every part of our society.
I would argue that to do energy work properly it is a requirement to listen and be humble, and that this is one of the things that bringing energy work into massage encourages – though there are other ways as well.
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:30 pm
The MTBOK scope of practice includes “energy work through non-contact techniques”(line 333), which I find highly objectionable. I understand the MTBOK received alot of negative feedback about non-contact techniquesin the first draft, so it was surprising to see it in the second draft.
If this line stands, then what are the boundaries of massage? Certainly hands-on contact qualifies as a logical boundary, least someone starts advertising “dial-a-massage” as a distance healing modality.
March 23rd, 2010 at 4:11 pm
While I do believe that energywork does belong in the BOK, I must chime in to agree with Mary Ann Foster that non-contact techniques do not. However, I don’t find it “extremely objectionable,” just slightly so.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
One thing I alwasy thought the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork got right was just that: the inclusion of Massage and Bodywork. The same for the ABMP – kudos! Why can’t we have both in our profession? So many Massage therapists are also Bodyworkers. What is with the massage apartheid?
Is it really the goal of our profession to walk the path of western medicine, chiropractic and physical therapy and allow insurance companies to dictate our role and income? Is it not obvious that insurance companies are a major factor in the crumbling of our healthcare system under its own economic weight?
Why not create a Massage and Bodywork body of knowledge and call forth leadership from various modalities as well as organizations to outline educational requirements? Why can’t State Boards be inclusive of Massage and Bodywork and adopt various certifying and licensing rules for those that want exclusivity and those that want inclusivity? For example, what is so difficult about requiring 500 hours of specified training in Massage and 250 hours (or whatever) of specified training in Reflexology (or another type of energy work) under State licensing requirements? The public simply needs to be taught that if a person has a legitimate State License then they have met the requirements of that license. If a modality is trademarked, then that modality most likely already has defined scope of practice and specified requirements.
Would we not be more of a powerful force in healthcare as inclusive of Massage AND Bodywork? Great lengths have already been taken to exclude certain groups and to define advanced groups and to allow and disallow certain groups from practicing in certain settings, why not flip it all around and make it positive and make it work for as many as possible? If a modality is trademarked, as a group it most likely already has definitions specified for education and training and scope of practice. Shouldn’t ethical practice be the same across the board whether a massage or energy work modality? So, that part would be defined very easily.
I so appreciate forums like this one. There are excellent discussions that take place and I am grateful for the ideas and inspiration of others.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:32 am
I reposted this on http://www.massageprofessionals.com and it has attracted over 100 comments there.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
A license simply means that you have paid a fee $$$$ to get a license to do your business in the city or state you have applied and meet the requirements of that license. There are no standards that apply across the board for education, training, and knowledge for a license. It doesn’t matter what your business is, a license simply allows you to practice your business in that city or state. A certification means you completed some form of schooling and/or training. Just because you have a license doesn’t necessarily mean you are certified and vice versa.
In Minnesota EVERY CITY has their own rules and regulations. Some cities have licenses and others don’t. They can all have different requirements for licensing depending upon what that city decides. The other problem is that no one regulates these laws either. As you can imagine this can be quite confusing and most massage therapists in MN don’t even know the laws themselves, let alone trying to get the information out the public!!
I believe massage therapists should have a national process that every state follows the same. In my perfect world of massage, I think the process should be like that of a doctor. You go to school and then you pick a specialty and then do further training to be a specialist in that field. There are so many different techniques and beliefs with massage I know it would be difficult, but this would also help the public to become more educated about all of the different therapies available. Also, a technique that works for one person might not work for another. I believe a well rounded massage therapist should be able to determine what their client needs by taking a good history. I feel thankful for the school and program I went to because we learned about all of the different techniques Eastern and Western. As a great teacher (Ryan Hoyme) told me once, “you can never have enough in your bag of tricks!!”
March 26th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Hi Stacy,
It is indeed difficult to operate as a Massge Therapist and or Bodyworker in a State without regulations for the same. However, if and when Minnesota pulls together legislation for Massage and or Bodywork, please help those active in such pursuits to seek out as many resources as possible. The ABMP has excellent legislative resource guides available. The specific issue of what you speak – each locality in the State requiring their own special business license (which can be very costly to Massage Therapists that work in more than one location) is a big issue. The ABMP recommends language be constructed to “Pre-empt” the locality requirements and allow a State License to supercede local requirements. This has been successful in many states. The wheel has already been invented for massage and bodywork legislation so there are many excellent resources, ABMP being an excellent resource https://www.abmp.com/members/legislative_resources.php (you may need to be a member to access this page, I am not sure) as well as the websites of many State licensing boards.
I agree with you, it would be convenient and idealistic if our profession (Massage AND Bodywork) could be the impetus to create the path to unilateral legislation for all States. That way we can create what we want to have instead of being dictated to or being the unwanted stepchild of other boards or worse yet, floundering in a sea of complex and sometimes confusing requirements in states without State legislation.
April 2nd, 2010 at 11:04 am
I think the controversy around “energy work” has more to do with the definition of “energy” than anything else. Some are referring to a supernatural force (and more often than not, I suspect it’s the skeptics using this definition!) while others are referring to the sum of all energetic processes occurring within the body. The latter definition can mean “hard” kinetic forces, and “soft” electrochemical and fluid forces. Outcome based massage tends to work with “hard” forces and what we traditionally refer to as “energy work” tends to deal with “soft” forces (and I do include the placebo effect as a soft force).
While our intention may focus on one set of energetic forces or another, all massage is ultimately about the application of energy. This makes it difficult for me to decide on a firm line between one and the other.
I’d also like to mention that when it comes to the terminology used in energy work, it should be remembered that these terms are metaphors rather than distinct and independent supernatural energies. There is no whirling vortex of yellow energy in my abdomen. But it’s easier to meditate and encourage my body to reach homeostasis in my digestive processes if I visualize the chakra and use it as a visual metaphor for the sum of the various processes going on in my abdomen.
Likewise, the energetic meridians of tradition acupuncture come from an earlier time when medicine was practice without the benefit of anatomical dissection. It’s much easier to conceptualize an energetic meridian along an imaginary line when the dissection hasn’t been done to match those lines and points up with the corresponding connective tissue planes. And there’s research to back this one up: http://www.uvm.edu/~annb/faculty/PDFs/257.pdf
So while it may not be possible to dissect a separate meridian structure within the body, it is possible to dissect the connecting structures that the meridian metaphor refers to.
With time, I think the study of other forms of energy work will lead to more detailed mechanisms that will enhance the traditional metaphors and give more empirical value to their practice.