It is sometimes quite amazing what information gets back to MovES Ltd about the NMAHM®! To start to deal with this question, let's perhaps just consider the basic logic to be applied. If the NMAHM® were dangerous there would seem to be a conflict in the numerical and geographical growth of people employing the Approach in the last 20+ years, and the uptake of either a part or the full Approach by others. The next point of logic: given that MovES Ltd personnel are health-care professionals in their own right and have both legal duties and professional responsibilities imposed upon them
by dint of such roles, the likelihood of them entertaining anything that may be construed as dangerous is highly improbable.
With regard to the 2 specific points you have identified there is perhaps some information that can be offered: they both seem to be direct distortions of the NMAHM®, and probably led by lack of informed knowledge of not only the NMAHM®, but also the basic physiological arrangement and organisation of the human body. The NMAHM® always aims to facilitate movement, and where range of movement becomes limited as a result of habituated movement styles, strategies are developed to enable people to maximise available range within any constraints of muscle imbalance, neurological impairment etc. Subject to appropriate preparation of the body or the limb , the degrees of over-reaching and the subsequent actions which directly lead to defined facilitation without compromise of any level of safety, and to other beneficial changes is actively sought within the NMAHM®.
With regard to open hand handling it is truth to say that the NMAHM® speaks against defined gripping actions. There have been two instances where the conflict between gripping and non-gripping has been known to arise. The first concerns a video that tied to combine the NMAHM® with Kinetic Handling . Unfortunately what was conveyed was the interpretation of NMAHM® and Kinetic Lifting/Handling by the producer of the video
rather than what either approach would advocate. A flat/ “open” hand approach was shown in the video with regard to moving and handling of objects, including the basic propulsion of a wheel-chair. This video was made without consultation of MovES Ltd
with regard to NMAHM®. The degrees of physical/physiological stress etc evident within the model in the video belies the verbal information regarding ease/ reduction in stress, and such a situation would readily create questions regarding the validity of the NMAHM® if that was what was actively being taught within the Approach.
The second involves a scenario reported at a UK Conference primarily for Back Care Advisors: the issue again involved use of a flat-hand contact on a wheel chair, and the reported lack of control. From the MovES Ltd perspective the predictable failure in control that would associate with such a strategy, together with the degrees of physical/ physiological stress etc belies the over-riding MovES Ltd/NMAHM® intention regarding ease/ reduction in stress, and overall safety in practice, suggesting in turn a lack in the education of the individual
advocating such practices, and purporting such views to be those of the NMAHM®.
|
