To: Susan Stewart, President
Committee of Massage Therapists
of British Columbia
From: Albert Schatz, Editor
Our Massage Law Newsletter is concerned with regulation of massage on state and local levels. We are therefore interested in the controversy in which the College of Massage Therapists (CMT) is presently engaged with the British Columbia Coalition of Allied Bodywork Practitioners (BCCABP).
We plan to publish a report which presents information about both sides of this controversy. We have information from BCCABP about its position. I am therefore now writing to you for information about CMT's position. Specifically, we would appreciate your explaining:
1. why British Columbia needs to regulate massage therapists when seven Canadian provinces do not regulate them?
2. why CMT's wants to eliminate unregistered massage therapists.
3. how CMT justifies its 3000-hour training.
Does CMT want to protect the public from harm by unregistered massage therapists? If so,
1. How many people have been harmed by unregistered and registered massage therapists?
2. What was the nature of and how serious were their injuries?
3. What medical treatment, if any, did injured individuals receive?
4. What evidence is there that the harm was indeed caused by unregistered massage therapists?
5. How many people does CMT believe have to be injured by unregistered massage therapists, and how serious does CMT believe their injuries have to be in order to justify requiring all massage therapists in British Columbia to be registered?
6. Why should British Columbia deny consumers the right to choose registered or unregistered massage therapists, as consumers do in Ontario?
Why does CTM need a 3000-hour training?
1. Why does British Columbia require a 3000-hour training when Ontario requires only 2200 hours?
2. Did CMT increase the training from 2200 to 3000 hours because massage therapists with the 2200-hour training harmed people?
3. Does CMT define competence as on-the-job performance? If not, how does CMT define competence?
4. How does CMT objectively evaluate the competence of registered massage therapists?
5. Does CMT's 3000-hour training produce massage therapists who are 36% more competent than those with a 2200-hour training, and 500% more competent than those with a 500-hour training?
6. Does CMT believe that massage therapists with the 3000-hour training harm fewer people than massage therapists with the 2200-hour training?
Prostitution. What evidence does CMT have that regulation of massage therapists has reduced prostitiution?
If CMT cannot justify (a) requiring all massage therapists to be registered, and (b) its 3000-hour training, how can one avoid concluding that CMT's objective is to gain monopoly control of massage by eliminating competition from unregistered massage therapists in order to benefit financially?
Thank you for your reply.
cc: David MacAulay, Health Professions Council
Sandy Mitchell, President, Massage Therapy Association of BC
Lincoln Lau, BCCABP