Back to the topic of certifications, specializations or certificates of special training in the general area of health.
Yesterday a colleague physiotherapist saw the three volumes of re-editions of books by Joseph Pilates at my desk. It is part of an automated operation of my professional access the original source of information on any subject on which I should have an opinion, explain or summarize the subject. But it is not just an automatic behavior: it is something that I believe is the basis of good practice in any field. It is the basis of meritocracy - the planning system based on professional merit and competence. This is how I teach my students.
When a particular practice codified knowledge requires a few generations, it is essential that the practitioner knows this route. It is not essential that every biologist has read Darwin's work. It is expected that a specialist in evolutionary biology, however, has read at least important parts of On The Origin of Species . Do not cross my mind ask a therapist if he studied concepts of psychoanalysis by reading the original texts of Freud: I assume you've done so.
Pilates books were there at my desk because I write about a subject related. The colleague then asked how I got these copies, because they would be inaccessible. Now just get on Amazon and buy - all that is required is an international credit card. He then commented that another colleague physiotherapist went to the States, without any practical knowledge of English, gave a crash course in Pilates and currently teaches a program or whatever that a wealthy district of Sao Paulo. In couple of hours dedicated to this week, making five thousand dollars. Shocked, I replied: "wow, burning desire to give the diploma." My colleague said that on the contrary, approved of the conduct of the third and that was the rule in our country.
Had an epiphany of acute pessimism that, in health practices with more hype, the world divides between those who know the thing, and who earns money with the thing. Without overlapping. I must be wrong, of course. It is quite possible that a small minority of those who earn money know what they're talking (and doing). It is also possible that a small minority of those dedicated to studying (a thing) will eventually win some money with it. But overall, what I have seen is that the rule is fraud.
mesmsa I've been pinch a couple of times. I know other colleagues who work alongside the "know how and what" (as opposed to "earn with, whatever it takes") that laugh of his own misery by admitting the number of times that gave them a hat, they took the method without acknowledging the source, among other equally disgusting practices of the ethical point of view.
Então dei um google em “curso pilates” e descobri centenas de programas oferecidos por instituições rigorosamente desconhecidas, cobrando fortunas para certificar alunos em poucas semanas a “dar aula de pilates”.
É evidente que há um componente de conhecimento tácito – aquele não codificado, transmitido de praticante experiente para novato – body in any practice. Well now, who can be naive enough to believe that hundreds of these courses have "experienced practitioners"?
Another colleague reported the situation where a company requested class of tai-chi-chuan in the office. That's right: between the tables. People who know this martial art heritage, though not original, ancient, they know perfectly well that's impossible. They also know that is only able to teach tai chi chuan, the person who has traveled a long training program and followed a strict code of ethics.
However, in the opinion of fellow physiotherapist and possibly the vast majority of healthcare professionals today do not meet the request of the company's demonstration of naivete and lack of commercial vision.
Case Pilates teacher fast food and the dilemma of the master of tai-chi-chuan demonstrate the tragic situation that fitness industry has created for professional education of bodily practices, therapeutic or not. It's an anything goes, where the first victim is the ethics and morality, is the second-practitioner "client", submitted to which I can only describe as intellectual larceny, and third is the public health.
