[Next] [Previous] [Top] [Contents] [Index]
Massage therapists in Massachusetts had
hoped that a state massage law would provide for relief from a
hodge-podge of local ordinances. Passage of a legislative bill
establishing a state massage ordinance was defeated in late July. A
group of physical therapists helped lobby against it.
The bill had been considered by some to be an example of enlightened
legislation. It included a provision to create a separate board of
massage therapist and somatic practitioners.
A common complaint about the typical massage law is that many other therapies are encompassed by laws with no specific educational requirements or clear definition. The holder of a massage license is thus legally allowed to practice any of a number of alternative practices with no training or experience. At the same time, an alternative practitioner with training and experience in a single therapy such as reflexology cannot practice without meeting licensing requirements for the profession of massage.
Massage therapists complain about the difficulties of practicing in Massachusetts under current laws. Local ordinances vary widely. Many are based on "regulations that come from an era when massage was considered akin to prostitution." One town requires a window in massage rooms. One requires an open window in a massage room. One requires testing for syphilis. "In Revere, massage therapy is listed in the municipal code under 'offenses against public decency.' Cross gender massage is prohibited."
Physical therapists defended their position, stating that massage therapists do not have sufficient training to be health care providers and therefore pose a serious risk to the public. Others contend that physical therapists compete with massage therapists for business.
The bill will be reintroduced later this year. ("Mass. Laws Irk Massagers," Associated Press, AOL News Profiles @aol.net, Sept. 9, 1996)
[Next] [Previous] [Top] [Contents] [Index]
�2003 Kunz and Kunz