Posted for D. Davis (Petersburg): I am very much in favor of Alaska moving forward with massage therapy legislation, particularly a licensure requirement for practitioners. I realize that I'm in the minority on the issue. My concern is that "Do no harm" is not a high enough standard by which to practice. I recognize the views of other therapists and have been searching out overall feedback since first reading the proposed legislation two years ago. I think the language of the legislation can be used to apply to different categories of practitioners, ensuring that bodyworkers are accountable for their work while allowing for scope of individual practice.
I have been in practice for eight years, and have been an AMTA member since I began. I feel that required licensure is a professional imperative; that as a health care provider, it's my responsibility to promote a statewide standard for massage practitioners. I'm looking forward to participating in this endeavor.
Danya Davis, LMP
1 comments:
Hi Danya,
Thank you for writing in the blog!.
I appreciate your view.
I don't have a lot of time now to respond to your blog specifically, but something that came up for me is noticing that you used the acronym "LMP" with your name.
Since Alaska doesn't have a state license, there has been discussion around acronyms. I have chosen to use NCMT - for Nationally Certified Massage Therapist. What do you consider LMP to stand for in the Alaskan context?
thanks Joanie
Post a Comment