Published
"Altered energy diagnosis"
Do you support this NANDA diagnosis? Or do you feel that this diagnosis threatens the legitamacy of our profession? Nanda still stands behind it. What are your thoughts?
paphgrl
I have lived long enough, and seen enough unexplained occurrences---even miracles---to know better than to rule out ANY possibility.That doesn't mean that a 'possibility' can be called science.
To be honest, Randy, I think NANDA is FOS. We don't need to borrow the word 'diagnosis' from the medical profession to lend ourselves credibility; we are a profession in our own right, and we should use our own language to describe what we do and what we aim to help our patients accomplish. That's a lot of what we're all about. But taking something as subjective as human beliefs/feelings and trying to slap a scientific label on them doesn't make it science, any more than sitting in a garage makes one a mechanic.
Just my two pennies' worth.
I agree, I think the nursing diagnosis is a crock.
However, they are trying to accomplish just what you're saying " we should use our own language to describe what we do and what we aim to help our patients accomplish...."
I don't think they claim that their diagnosises are scientific in nature....just that the interventions are things that nurses can do. For example "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The nursing diagnosis readiness for enhanced spiritual well-being is defined as an "ability to experience and integrate meaning and purpose in life through a person's connectedness with self, others art, music, literature, nature, or a power greater than oneself." (Anonymous, 2002, p. 68) and was approved by NANDA in 2002." Is not science.
Do you have a source where NANDA claims to put scientific labels on their NG's and claim they are science?
The nursing diagnosis readiness for enhanced spiritual well-being is defined as an "ability to experience and integrate meaning and purpose in life through a person's connectedness with self, others art, music, literature, nature, or a power greater than oneself." (Anonymous, 2002, p. 68) and was approved by NANDA in 2002." Is not science.Do you have a source where NANDA claims to put scientific labels on their NG's and claim they are science?
It is interesting that the spiritual well being definition mentions "connectedness". When discussing TT, it occured to me that TT could have a psychological impact in that very way.
I have a home health pt at this time, who has real chronic pain. If I find a means of "connecting" or empathizing at a real level, I find often her discomfort diminishes. My theory is that one outcome of chronic pain is psychological distancing and isolation. When you can make that connection, it some what ameliorates the discomfort by releasing some of the stress in that area, increasing the persons capacity to cope.
In other words, pain puts us in a knot, and understanding helps untie it.
I do not believe this action alters any energy.
We are physical, pschological and spiritual beings. I believe that each aspect of our being impacts the other.
The problem with nursing diagnosis is that they really stretch beyond science and our understanding of these connections,and, in that sense, they only diminish the discipline of nursing. Treat the whole pt, yes. But the rubber needs to meet the road.
It is not necessary to talk down to people.:stone Heck, I consider myself well-informed and intelligent, but these long-winded treatises on statistics are not only boring, they are waaaaay over a lot of peoples' heads---including mine---and while I'm sure this was not the intent, I don't particularly appreciate being made to feel stupid.I for one would appreciate it if we can get this thread back on track. I'll be honest, I think this so-called 'nursing diagnosis' is a steaming pile of guano, but I will defend to the death the right to discuss it........in terms ALL of us can understand, if you please.
Thank you.
Not to start another "fire" but if this was in reference to Danu's post...I actually appreciated it and think I understand where it was coming from. I read many posts but rarely make my own because I usually find that someone eventually writes what I would have. In this case, I am reading the entire thread at once so I see the inconsistencies, questions, etc that might be lost if I were reading them at seperate times. It would appear that the original posts referencing the statistics and studies, etc could have been explained way better. I have been reading through waiting for several questions posed to be answered and they never were. This particular "statistics lesson" was very enlightening and as a student, I actually appreciated the learning opportunity. I didn't feel "talked down to," it seemed to be more about someone with some concrete knowledge about the topic making a case for their "take" on it. Well done
:deadhorse
This particular "statistics lesson" was very enlightening and as a student, I actually appreciated the learning opportunity. I didn't feel "talked down to," it seemed to be more about someone with some concrete knowledge about the topic making a case for their "take" on it. Well done
This thread grabbed me and made me read every single word!
Man, I thought I was smart until you guys started going at it.
You have inspired me, I'll be signing off to go study now......
mo bello-- lowly student
(abbreviated)
To follow up the above questions, assume energy field exists and assuming that one can manipulate it for good - what are the potential side effects? Any potential interactions with other medical treatment? Since you are dealing with energy fields, say, would all the high tech hospital equipments affect the the energy field?
Can you imagine the additions required in the Physicians Desk reference? "this drug may react with TT and many forms of voodo magic, negatively impacting mojo..."
If this were a true discussion about TT or any alternative medical treatments or nursing diagnose, for that matter, one would expect it to be more enlighten intelligent, rather then being dismissed as a pile of ---- by its detractors, discussion. The discussion appears to center on the belief that unless something can be proven by scientific research, it cannot possible exist and therefore is not deserving of our recognition or respect. And there appears to be a focus that nursing is a science. One wonders if this focus is not present, in an attempt to win the approval of the hard science believers, such as physicians. I fear that some will now attempt to prove or even state that their belief in science is not an attempt to influence others, although it would be a misstep, IMHO. Those that are true believers in the hard science, evidence based theory only, would best remember that what they hold true were not always provable using the hard scientific method. All one has to do is read about the detractors of a Viennese physician who advocated the washing of hands between examining laboring mothers and post delivery mothers. He did not know nor could he prove the existence of bacteria or cross contamination. And he suffered through more then his share of detractors but hard science eventually caught up to prove his theory correct.
Grannynurse
Here is a personal perspective:
In about 1980, when I was in graduate school, I attended a one week workshop in Therapeutic Touch. It was taught by a nurse. At the time, I was very open to the possibility of TT and had done some background reading.
I really tried, but I have have no luck with TT at all. I can't see auras, although I accept that some people can. I tried to reduce my (then ) infant's daughter's fever with TT, but was unsuccessful, even with Tylenol on top of TT.
If I pass my hands over someone else's body, I can't feel any energy field. However, I do notice that I am quite aware of subtle changes in heat. The other person is also aware of the heat of my hands, and I've been told that it feels "wierd".
So, I am open-minded, but skeptical. If I, as a reasonably motivated and accepting nurse can't assess energy fields, I'm not totally comfortable with the nursing diagnosis of altered energy field. I am a supporter of nursing diagnosis, but I think the diagnoses should be usable by all nurses with the appropriate background.
If this were a true discussion about TT or any alternative medical treatments or nursing diagnose, for that matter, one would expect it to be more enlighten intelligent, rather then being dismissed as a pile of ---- by its detractors, discussion. The discussion appears to center on the belief that unless something can be proven by scientific research, it cannot possible exist and therefore is not deserving of our recognition or respect. And there appears to be a focus that nursing is a science. One wonders if this focus is not present, in an attempt to win the approval of the hard science believers, such as physicians. I fear that some will now attempt to prove or even state that their belief in science is not an attempt to influence others, although it would be a misstep, IMHO. Those that are true believers in the hard science, evidence based theory only, would best remember that what they hold true were not always provable using the hard scientific method. All one has to do is read about the detractors of a Viennese physician who advocated the washing of hands between examining laboring mothers and post delivery mothers. He did not know nor could he prove the existence of bacteria or cross contamination. And he suffered through more then his share of detractors but hard science eventually caught up to prove his theory correct.Grannynurse
I am sorry grannynurse, I have been teasing alot about this. I will try to turn to a more rational approach.
Did anyone hear a story about a pt in the midwest suing the hospital because they were harmed by the excess negative energy being discharged by a theraputic toucher working on the guy in the next bed?
I can not substantiate this story. This is only a rumor.
Now for a more rational approach:
Need the info: does TT have its root in theosophy?
And could someone plainly post statistical evidence that this procedure effects outcomes for patients beyond chance? Yes, we may not have the equipment to actually measure energy fields, so it may not be fair at this point to disclaim it on that basis.
So that would be why Danu is trying to educate us all on statistical studies. What other method do we have to test this out? We are being told to accept this based on ?? If there is a legitimate study out there that actually demostrated that TT had any measurable positive impact on the patient, then, we would be remiss not to give it some consideration.
Can you imagine the additions required in the Physicians Desk reference? "this drug may react with TT and many forms of voodo magic, negatively impacting mojo..."
Well, they already have references on interactions between traditional meds and alternative meds. At least those alternative meds that gone through scientific studies and they document what they figure out so far.
But hey, the PDR weighs like a few bowling balls anyway, won't feel it if we add a lb here and there. It is like you owe 10 billion dollars in debt, so what is the big deal if you owe another extra million here and there.:)
The problem with nursing diagnosis is that they really stretch beyond science and our understanding of these connections,and, in that sense, they only diminish the discipline of nursing. Treat the whole pt, yes. But the rubber needs to meet the road.
The philosphy of the school of nursing I'm attending for my RN to BSN is that nursing is both an art and a science (they are a Christian school). As I mentioned earlier, I am more science oriented. I think if we're totally scientific, then we're leaving out something..I'm not sure what, but nursing wouldn't seem as personable or holistic to me if it was only science.
Let me say again, I am by no means a NANDA fan.
chadash
1,429 Posts
May I postulate that if a practitioner adjusted a pts energy field, it might hamper his/her ability, for instance, to clap on or clap off. This could lead to law suits from the maker of the clapper.
Do we know the full potential of this practice? We could send the cosmos into some kind of tail spin. Do you want to be responsible for that? I dont think so!