guided imagery
I have used it on several occasions. It can be a very effective tool in giving the client a subjective sense of relief and possibly allowing them to resolve psychological conflicts. It is, and must be understood as, a form of hypnotism. As such it has almost no objective significance. It is not a reliable diagnostic tool. It is possible to do great harm using hypnotic techniques. It is possible to, for example, relieve the pain associated with real physical disorders, so that effective treatment is not sought.
Science is the tool that modern medicine and nursing is founded on. Science demands that therapy be shown to have objective value. Objective truth in a scientific sense is found through the use of double blind studies involving statisticly significant samplings.
I get very uncomfortable when supposed health care professionals say they "believe in" a form of therapy, in the sense of believing it is real. Scientific Health Care is not about what we think is real but about what can be proven to be real.
Every few years someone trots out another effect based on hypnosis in its various forms and calls it a therapy. No harm in that so long as it bills itself as only dealing with the subjective experience of the patient and not with the objective real world. Help the patient deal with his fears, fine. Help him focus on healing himself of AIDS or Cancer, excellent. But if you tell him that by means of your guided imagery or whatever, you will make it unnecessary that he take those nasty pills or have that surgery, then what you do has another name than "therapy". It is "quackery" at the least and "murder" at the worst.
Nursing News