While I concur that your 'list' of credentialed specialists for some professions may not be warranted I challenge your thinking for massage Therapists and kinesiologists, and also your prespective on specialization (credentials). Words matter. Credentials are not just to increase pay. I can speak to this personally in the nursing profession. There's a cap on salary regardless of a nurse's qualifications. The Regulated Health Professions Act, mandates the credentials for health care professions and are in place to protect the public. This is a key point regarding massage Therapists ( RMT). RMTs work up front and personal with their clients, as do Kinesiologists who are employed within physiotherapy departments working within a healthcare setting. At the end of the day, credentials ensure a safety net (so-to-speak). Additionally specialization, aka credentials, confirm deeper knowledge, skill and critical thinking, with the better results (in theory. That topic is foe another debate). IMO that is one of the key points and not only for health care related professions. In my 40+years of work experience the quality of HR policies, support and personnel retention for HR with credentials vs those without was blatantly obvious. What are your thoughts.
I agree that what, say, kinesiologists' activities sometimes could overlap with appropriately protected health fields like physiotherapy. However, I think there's also an argument to be made that the full scope of kinesiology also covers exercise coaching and fitness instruction - which arguably should not be restricted.
Similarly, some massage therapists' work could overlap with medically sensitive activities, but that doesn't mean that routine, low-risk massage services should also be restricted - when concerns about hygiene and consent could easily be covered by regular commercial trade expectations.
So I think it's really a question of scope.
As an analogy, the guy who swaps out my summer and winter tires is not licensed - even though a mistake could cause a serious accident that costs lives (including mine). It's my responsibility as a consumer to ensure I choose the right technician. I don't think this is an area where government or regulatory colleges should have a role.
I've been cutting and styling my own hair* for 30 years without a license. Still have both ears. No permanent disfigurements. Hairstylisting as a red seal trade is absurd.
I actually haven't seen the inside of a barbershop for *40* years. Although I'll admit that the first time I tried it myself, I had my very new wife stand behind within easy reach of a bucket to catch the blood...just in case.
While I concur that your 'list' of credentialed specialists for some professions may not be warranted I challenge your thinking for massage Therapists and kinesiologists, and also your prespective on specialization (credentials). Words matter. Credentials are not just to increase pay. I can speak to this personally in the nursing profession. There's a cap on salary regardless of a nurse's qualifications. The Regulated Health Professions Act, mandates the credentials for health care professions and are in place to protect the public. This is a key point regarding massage Therapists ( RMT). RMTs work up front and personal with their clients, as do Kinesiologists who are employed within physiotherapy departments working within a healthcare setting. At the end of the day, credentials ensure a safety net (so-to-speak). Additionally specialization, aka credentials, confirm deeper knowledge, skill and critical thinking, with the better results (in theory. That topic is foe another debate). IMO that is one of the key points and not only for health care related professions. In my 40+years of work experience the quality of HR policies, support and personnel retention for HR with credentials vs those without was blatantly obvious. What are your thoughts.
I agree that what, say, kinesiologists' activities sometimes could overlap with appropriately protected health fields like physiotherapy. However, I think there's also an argument to be made that the full scope of kinesiology also covers exercise coaching and fitness instruction - which arguably should not be restricted.
Similarly, some massage therapists' work could overlap with medically sensitive activities, but that doesn't mean that routine, low-risk massage services should also be restricted - when concerns about hygiene and consent could easily be covered by regular commercial trade expectations.
So I think it's really a question of scope.
As an analogy, the guy who swaps out my summer and winter tires is not licensed - even though a mistake could cause a serious accident that costs lives (including mine). It's my responsibility as a consumer to ensure I choose the right technician. I don't think this is an area where government or regulatory colleges should have a role.
I've been cutting and styling my own hair* for 30 years without a license. Still have both ears. No permanent disfigurements. Hairstylisting as a red seal trade is absurd.
* shaving my head twice a week
I actually haven't seen the inside of a barbershop for *40* years. Although I'll admit that the first time I tried it myself, I had my very new wife stand behind within easy reach of a bucket to catch the blood...just in case.