Responsible vs. Irresponsible

From the Author

After publishing my overview “Be Informed—or Else,” I received a message from a former student who has become a good friend and a very successful medical massage practitioner. She graduated from my program 25 years ago and, 15 years ago, moved to a small vacation town in California, where she established a thriving practice.

I know she is a true friend and well-wisher, but I was a bit surprised by her opinion. She felt that my article should be more “friendly,” otherwise people might dislike me. Her concern was that many practitioners are already disappointed after being misled by so-called scientists and fashionable slogans, and that my article might feel like rubbing salt into the wound.

I called her back, and we had a long conversation. To summarize the key point, I reminded her of what I said in the very first class she ever attended with me:

“Always remember—this profession is about patients. That is the foundation of a successful career.”

This is simple psychology. When we truly understand this and build our skills around this principle, all professional development moves in the right direction: toward the ability to deliver results.

Then, speaking as a teacher to a student, I added:

“If you had not fully absorbed that first lesson, you might never have become as successful as you are today.”

Success is the ability to consistently reproduce positive outcomes and sustain results. That is what builds a reputation. That is why physicians refer to us, and why patients refer their friends and family members.

I then asked her a direct question: How many massage practitioners who have been in practice for five or ten years—or who are just starting their careers—are even aware of the scams I described in my article?

I gently insisted on an answer. You can easily guess what it was.

Dear colleagues, this is a serious issue. Without establishing the understanding that this profession is truly about patients, one cannot build a meaningful body of knowledge or develop real clinical ability.

In my case, writing these articles is ultimately about patients—not about protecting the feelings of disappointed colleagues.

Thank you.

In my previous article, “Be Informed—or Else,” I presented what I believe to be an important educational overview. For those who did not have the opportunity to read it, here is the link.

https://www.medicalmassage-edu.com/blog/be-informed-or-else.htm

In this article, I would like to address another troubling phenomenon in the massage profession—one that began during the era of so-called evidence-based massage practice and, unfortunately, continues to this day. This phenomenon involves educators who search for scientific data unrelated to massage therapy and then immediately use it to create educational programs and courses.

Several years ago, I became tired of reviewing massage-related publications. At that time, nearly every educator who published an article included an impressive list of references. Out of professional responsibility, I checked those references. What I discovered was alarming: most were drawn from orthopedic or surgical publications, many were unrelated to the topic being discussed, and none were directly relevant to massage practice. This is unacceptable. Frankly, it borders on deception.

The same educators who attempted to impress readers with long reference lists were also teaching courses based on this material. Does this not resemble a scam?

As an experienced massage practitioner and educator, I can state with confidence: educators who do not spend substantial time at the treatment table cannot teach outcome-oriented therapy. They cannot teach how to achieve sustainable clinical results. Only after personally treating hundreds of similar cases, carefully observing outcomes over time, and refining techniques through direct clinical experience can one develop true mastery—and only then can one responsibly teach others.

Massage can be pleasant and relaxing without making a meaningful difference in a patient’s life. Massage therapy—therapy by means of massage—must be oriented toward measurable, sustainable outcomes. Those seeking continuing education should choose instructors based on this principle.

Some readers may feel that I am being overly critical. I disagree. On the contrary, I believe it is my moral responsibility to speak openly about this issue. I welcome disagreement, and it is entirely possible that I will agree with some counterarguments.

I invite you to judge for yourself. Read the case history describing the development of a medical massage protocol for post-concussion rehabilitation. This is not an unusual example. What makes it particularly troubling—what makes it a moral failure—is that it involves the health of the brain.

https://www.medicalmassage-edu.com/blog/management-of-post-concussion-symptoms-and-post-traumatic-encephalopathy-with-medical-massage-part-i.htm

An important point from the introduction of this article is that I was formally trained in post-concussion treatment protocols aimed at reversing—and preventing further—reversible encephalopathic developments. I then spent several years treating hundreds of patients who had sustained concussions, carefully observing their clinical progress. Only after this extensive hands-on experience did I begin writing about the subject and teaching others.

I am not presenting myself as a role model; rather, I am illustrating what responsible education looks like—especially when the brain is involved. A few years ago, an individual on social media—whom I believe to be a chiropractor—began calling himself a “concussion doctor” and started teaching concussion protocols to physical therapists, stating that he would also accept massage therapists. He gained a massive following.

I began posting substantive questions related to the subject matter. As expected, none were answered. This lack of response reflects a serious lack of responsibility, particularly given the clinical implications. It is our professional obligation to investigate how such methods are developed. He impressed followers by presenting a long list of references, which I carefully reviewed; none were related to physical treatment methods. Naturally, I asked how many patients he had personally treated successfully and how many cases he had clinically observed. Again, there was no response.

My purpose in sharing this example is to emphasize our collective responsibility to ask questions—clearly, directly, and without hesitation. I am confident that many followers who saw my repeated questions and observed his silence stopped following him and chose not to attend his courses.

I hope you appreciate my decision to raise this issue.

Best wishes,
Boris Prilutsky