March 15, 2007 at 7:49 pm #66835
There is a push in the state of New Hampshire to regulate Reiki and require a license to practice. Practitioners would be upheld to the same requirements as massage therapists. To acquire a license, one would have to complete 1000 hours of classroom time.
Has this been happening in other states? And for those who are Reiki practitioners, is this a good thing? What are your thoughts?March 16, 2007 at 7:53 pm #116879
You know, I haven’t heard of any. My Reiki master, did say that you can’t touch your client without first asking their permission unless you had a professional nursing or massage therapist liscense. other than that I haven’t heard of Texas laws or regulations. It would be interesting to research.
I can’t immagine what you would talk about for 1000 hours in a class room.
I can see clinical hours. Hands on hours – maybe.March 16, 2007 at 8:53 pm #116883
DonParticipantJeannie;132789 wrote:I can’t immagine what you would talk about for 1000 hours in a class room.
I have to go along with you on that. It’s certainly going to shoot the costs out of sight.March 19, 2007 at 12:19 am #116926
In one respect this is a VERY positive thing. They recognize Reiki as an alternative medicine.
I can imagine the kinds of things that could be taught in a classroom, and none of them related to the simple and pure Reiki training. You can have lots of add-ons, but are they worth it or necessary? T
here is no muscles manipulation, so why would you need to learn the muscles like a massage therapist? It’s not a bad idea to learn something about the organs and such, but that is not what Reiki is all about. You are not healing anybody, the client is getting a jumpstart to their own healing abilities through you. How in the world would you test on that?
Hands-on hours would make more sense under supervision, which is not a bad thing. However, 1000 hours seems to be over kill.
To look ahead a little you could get left adrift for a few years while Reiki teachers clock THEIR hours to be able to supervise. The stuff nightmares are made of. To be grandfathered in might be an answer.
Some hospitals are having their medical personnel take Reiki classes because they are so helpful in their jobs. Again, they would need a supervisor and where would they pull from? New Hampshire has not thought this through, I don’t think.
There are 3 methods of Reiki performance, hands-on and hands off or a combination of both. Reiki is known as a hands-on modality…. how do you counter that?
Remember Reiki heals on 3 levels, physical, emotional and spiritual, and a Reiki practitioner DOES NOT choose which one. They are just available to offer the energy. Again, how would you test results for physical, emotional or spiritual healing?
If the patient agrees ( signs an agreement to allow ) there should be no problem.
To get yourself licensed, again this is a good thing….your credibilty goes up…I would think just registering would be enough. Practitioners would benefit by being on an accredited listing.
FDMarch 19, 2007 at 1:07 am #116928
fyi…Here is an email I received…
Dear New Hampshire Holistic Practitioners,
> The NH legislature is about to vote on laws that would require
> not only massage therapists, but Reiki practitioners, energy workers,
> Feldenkrais and movement practitioners plus many other holistic
> practitioners to meet certain educational and licensing qualifications
> established by a state board, rather than the standards and
> certifications established by their own professions. In addition,
> schools and instruction in many alternative modalities will also be
> regulated by that board which does not include representatives from each
> profession in the writing sessions of this legislation. Please read the
> information below to become educated and take action on this issue which
> may seriously affect the practices of individual holistic practitioners,
> schools and instructors in the state of New Hampshire.
> *Subject: Legislative Action Letter-Just home NOW! Calling you*
> *To:* Massage, Bodywork, Somatic, Movement, and Energy Student and
> Professional Community
> *From:* A NH Coalition of Massage, Bodywork, Somatic, Movement and
> Energy Professionals Against HB908
> *Date:* March 5, 2007
> *Re:* House Bill 908 (HB908) – Relative to the licensure and regulation
> of massage therapists and registration of somatic and bodywork
> practitioners http://gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2007/HB0908.html
> There is a bill (HB908) before the legislature this year that will
> replace the current massage therapy law Chapter 328:B and itsâ€™
> amendments with a new massage therapy law, Chapter 328:H. This law, if
> passed, will have complete control over the licensing of massage
> therapists as well as the mandatory registration of somatic and bodywork
> practitioners if they meet certain qualifications and hold a current
> certificate from a certifying agency that will be approved only by the
> newly formed massage regulatory board. In addition, this board will have
> the authority to review, approve, and deny curricula and instructor
> applications for all massage therapy programs, including those that
> exist in degree-granting institutions in the state of NH.
> A small group of NH massage, bodywork, somatic, movement and energy
> practitioners and National organization members of these professions has
> been following the progress of this bill for a year. We have attempted
> to work with the NH Massage Advisory Board and the Department of Health
> and Human Services in crafting legislation that would allow
> practitioners of nationally recognized and mature professions to work in
> the state of NH with the educational and certification standards of
> their own professions. The massage advisory board and DHHS have written
> HB908 without any substantial participation or agreement from the great
> majority of people who practice these professions. Instead, they are
> trying to quickly push this legislation through in an attempt to gain
> complete control over all aspects of each profession. After a thorough
> analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this proposed bill by local
> and national people in many of the professions, it has been determined
> that this b ill is an extraordinarily bad piece of legislation that
> should never pass into law. The major reasons for this follow.
> 1. To reiterate, the massage advisory board and DHHS did not include
> representatives from each profession in the writing sessions of
> this legislation.
> 2. The massage advisory board and DHHS held a public hearing in
> August, 2006 to review the proposed bill. After receiving a vote
> of near unanimous opposition to the bill by all professions, they
> decided to submit it anyways.
> 3. This legislation is going to create a new regulatory board made up
> of four licensed massage therapists and one public member. The
> current board is an advisory board only. The problems with this are:
> 1. The authorâ€™s of HB908 have given themselves unprecedented
> power over a body of professions that they are not qualified
> to regulate.
> 2. This will give one profession, massage therapy, complete
> control over all massage, bodywork, somatic, movement, and
> energy professions creating un-resolvable conflict of
> interest, and restriction of trade issues.
> 4. There is absolutely no limitation in the statute on what the
> regulatory board can do because everything will be defined by this
> board in the rule making process after the statute goes into law
> without any legal way for a profession to have control over their
> own destiny. These are some of the concerns, but by no means all:
> 1. The minimum educational standards required for an initial
> license will probably be raised to 1000 hours from 750
> hours. This will be for all professions even though that is
> not explicitly stated in the bill. There is the potential
> that people renewing their license after 2 years, who do not
> meet the new minimum education standards, would have to go
> back to school and complete the new requirements. You would
> have a year to do it and be issued a temporary license in
> the interim.
> 2. Our fees will have to be high enough to produce enough money
> to support this newly formed board. The fees will go to
> supporting an administrator, investigators, technical and
> clerical staff, in addition to reimbursement of board
> members for meeting and board activities, and travel
> expenses. We would have absolutely no control over their
> activities or our fees.
> 3. This board will now have the power to review, approve, and
> deny curricula and instructor applications for all massage
> therapy programs, including those that exist in
> degree-granting institutions in the state of NH. In
> addition, they will have the power to approve or deny any
> certifying agency for other professions. This has broad
> implications for any school or instructor in any massage,
> bodywork, somatic, movement, or energy profession in the
> state of NH.March 19, 2007 at 2:32 am #116930
Reading the info you just posted puts a whole new light on your initial post.
Sounds a lot like the Cable Television in the state of Illinois. Take over and reduce all others to sludge.
It does not sound like a healthy bill to pass. Allowing one group to dominate and control all of the others.
No, not a good thing at all…..
Do massage therapists feel THAT threatened in New Hampshire?
Here the massage therapists happily go about gathering in all the classes they can find of other modalities of healing or body work.
SAD, SAD, SAD!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.