Nursing diagnosis "altered energy field"

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 was going to go back to school this past June, but the money part fell through, and now I see it was really God's leading: so many things have happened in my family and extended family this year, it would have been impossible. You all have given me a new spark, maybe it isn't now, but maybe it isn't too late!

Hmmm.. maybe it is not the season yet. There maybe another season later on. Remember that nurse who got her RN at 60. If you ended going to school after 60, then look at it this way, you are going to break her record :).

With you many years working in the health care field, I think you'll make a good nurse.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Yeah that. We need all kinds in this forum, there's so many of us anyway, so many kinds of people there is no "fit" to fit into anyway. But we especially needs those of us who don't fit. :rotfl:

That is true... if you fit, then you really don't fit. :)

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Which do you wish the definition to, Tweety-TT or altered energy fields?

Grannynurse

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I guess I should have phrased my question more specifically. Have you ever spoken to a TT practitioner, who has an MSN as well as extensive training in TT. Have you ever spoken to or read about the theory behind TT, other then the distorted nay sayers articles? I ask because you have such a negative attitude toward something you apparently know little about, other then the nay sayers tomes. Do you even know or understand how the idea of TT was first developed? Do you know it was developed at one of this country's leading university? One that also developed among the first advance practice programs?

Oh, ok... I think I understand your question better now. As I mentioned before, I have not spoken to a TT practitioner period.

I know a brief history of TT (very brief), that it was developed by Delores Krieger in 1979 (she has a Ph.D. in nursing and a prof at NY Uni). A big part of Dr Krieger's idea is inspire by Dora Kunz. Dora Kunz is supposed to be a therapist and also claim to be a clairvoyant. She (Kunz) has been studying the laying on of hands. Also she has a working relationship with Oskar Estabany who is a psychic healer. These information is from Gale Encyclopedia

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2601/is_0013/ai_2601001343

What else, I know a few more details from "Fundamental of Nursing" book I referenced a while back. Some details that we did not brought up before are things like there are different energy form: blue, yellow, green... etc. Also the person is suppose to modulates these energy. It also talked about Chakras.

As for that it was developed in a leading university, that I did not know. But that does not do anything to me because I went to Berkeley and professors are wrong some times, big time. What famous professors are really good at is setting out new research directions and give a vision. But these visions have to be tested. Dr. Krieger may have that gift, in trying out new ideas. But we should let the established scientific method do its job to verify it or not. Right now after many decades, there is really no verification (unless one insisted on only reading pro-TT articles).

As for the concept like energy fields, I am familiar with it. As I mentioned before, I grew up in Asia and this is embedded in my culture. When Chakras is mentioned, yes, I know what it is. Actually I did a little study with a special form of yoga call Raja yoga way back in the dinosaur ages when I was at Berkeley. One thing I did was also to look at a translation of one of the scriptures they use. The one thing that stood out in my mind was there are warnings in there about messing with the chakras. You need a guru to guide you or else you can do it wrong and all kinds of bad things would suppose to happened ranging from going into psychosis to all kinds of illness. That is not unique to Indian metaphysics. This idea of messing up the meridian point is also in Chinese martial art stories. My questions is, if things like chakras really exist, does Dr. Krieger know what is she getting herself into? Assuming it exisit, are there cases where people messed up and just not reported?

The bottom line - 1) Have not talked to any TT practitioner. 2) Know some very brief history 3) The energy concept which TT is heavily base on, yes, have some elementary knowledge base on papers at Berkeley and growing up in Asia.

Here is a generic question for everyone. How much does one has to know about the opposing view to be able to really critique it? For example, if I disagree that demon possesion causes ALL schizophrenia, do I need to go in depth into the whole area of demon possesion (with different religious traditions) before I can say demon possesion does not cause schizophrenia?

I am hapy to see that you are at least willing admit to the possibility of TT being proven and you might accept it in the distant future. There is hope for us all.

Wow! I did not know I am TT's great hope....:) I am absolutely flattered.

In response to your question regarding closed mindness being bad. It is inherently bad to close your mind to any future learning. Of course you are free to disagree.

Grannynurse

And I will take that freedom :). Depending what one is learning. Learning "bad" things are not good for instant. Would, in a gang context, learning how to kill without mercy be bad? Would learning how to make a bomb to give to suicide bombers be bad? Would learning how to "spin" the truth in a marketing agency knowing full well that the product is useless or even harmful be bad?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Which do you wish the definition to, Tweety-TT or altered energy fields?

Grannynurse

I am totally confused about the reply to Tweety...

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nursing assistant.

Danu: you mentioned you were from India, and I was wondering if you have ever read any of Ravi Zachrias's books? He does discuss the conflict in world views, eastern and western thought and the like. I love to read his stuff because I have no background in philosophy, science and all that, and he sort of puts it out without assumptions. I think folks who thoroughly understand an issue sometimes are the best at explaining things to novices.

You should be a teacher!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nursing assistant.

Kelly, you asked what type of work I do as a CNA, and at this time I am in Home health hospice.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Danu: My opinion on your "generic question": How much should one know about a subject to really critique it? You used the demon possession example so I will stick with that.

I think it depends on what one is doing with the critique. For example, if you claim to be a demon possession expert, I'd expect you to truly be an expert and be very verses in the subject if you are testifying on my behalf at a trial (should I ever become possessed.) However if you are just throwing out a critique i.e. opinion during a conversation, I wouldn't expect you to be an expert. Of course, I am certainly free (and in fact obligated) to decide how much of your critique I am willing to believe or accept based on my level of education in the matter. Additionally your critique will have to be very convincing for me personally because I have already formed an opinion on the matter based on my level of education.

But I digress. In nursing, being able to diagnose an "energy field alteration" relies on objectively feeling/assessing such alterations: "vacant/hole/spike...wave...tingling/dense/flowing" (Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary 19th ed. pg 2611). I certainly don't posses the ability to assess a "spike" or a "flowing" energy field. Therefore this evidence is all I need to critique this diagnosis and decide it is not for me. And any critique to the opposite would have to be very convincing to get me to change my mind. Therefore, if you come to me and say, "I think energy fields is a good diagnosis and I think you should use it... you better know a lot about it." Because I tend to be quite pragamatic, your critique should have some solid evidence to get me on board.

Did that make any sense at all?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nursing assistant.
In nursing, being able to diagnose an "energy field alteration" relies on objectively feeling/assessing such alterations: "vacant/hole/spike...wave...tingling/dense/flowing" (Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary 19th ed. pg 2611). I certainly don't posses the ability to assess a "spike" or a "flowing" energy field. Therefore this evidence is all I need to critique this diagnosis and decide it is not for me. And any critique to the opposite would have to be very convincing to get me to change my mind. Therefore, if you come to me and say, "I think energy fields is a good diagnosis and I think you should use it... you better know a lot about it." Because I tend to be quite pragamatic, your critique should have some solid evidence to get me on board.

Did that make any sense at all?

Thanks for the info rngreenhorn. But you have got to explain to me what this

"vacant/hole/spike...wave...tingling/dense/flowing" thing is?

Oh, and I have to add this to our list of ways of assessing : pragmatism.

I think you make really good points because I believe that this discussion has become, and should become: how do we determine what is valid, true or even just efficacious. Is that a word?

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I don't believe in ghosts but my friend does. She also believes people can talk to the dead and channel messages to loved ones. I can't prove they don't exist and she can't prove they do. I really don't care unless she tries to tell me that channeled messages from dead loved ones can help you psychologically. And that there should be a nursing process to take advantage of channeling or a nursing diagnosis to describe it. Or that I just have a closed mind to it since it has been "proven" on the Maury Povich and Montel Williams shows. Maybe ghosts exhist but they have no place in a science based language like nursing diagnosis...and neither does TT or energy fields! IMHO

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Danu: you mentioned you were from India, and I was wondering if you have ever read any of Ravi Zachrias's books? He does discuss the conflict in world views, eastern and western thought and the like. I love to read his stuff because I have no background in philosophy, science and all that, and he sort of puts it out without assumptions. I think folks who thoroughly understand an issue sometimes are the best at explaining things to novices.

You should be a teacher!

Miscommunication on my part. I am not from Indian (you might be confused with it because I did a small paper on Raja Yoga which is Indian way back in the dianosaur age).

I grew up in Asia, in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, we have both East and West exisiting side by side. We don't really have "alternative" medicine the way Americans here does it though. In the US, "alternative" includes anything from foot reflexology(sp?) to acupuncture and everything in between. In Hong Kong, we really don't have the "alternative" concept, at least not when I was growing up. Sometime like foot reflexology is consider by many people to be just superstition. In medicine, we don't have "alternative" medicine. We have Western medicine and Chinese medicine and acupunture. My aunt for example knows both. She usually use Western medicine. But once in a while she will use Chinese medicine when Western medicine is not effective for the person she is treating. On a personal note, my mom was about to have a 3rd miscarrige when she carried me. They tried everything and I was about to be miscarried. My aunt swith to some Chinese medicine and that stopped the miscarriage. My mom told me that my aunt gave her a huge dose of this Chinese med (have no idea what it was). The funny thing was that my mom kept telling me I should never take Chinese meds or herbs because I am allergic to it. She blamed it on the huge dose of Chinese meds she took to stop her miscarriage (I don't know how true it is since I never heard my aunt tell me the same thing).

I have not read Ravi Zachrias' book. Sounded interesting though.

One of the class I am taking this semester is Magic, Science, and Religion. On the Science part, one of the most important book according to the prof is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. He is a philosopher, physicist. This book deals with radical paradigm shifts in science. I am debating whether to read him or another book (we have different choices) titled "The Secret Life of Germs" by Tierno.

This class should be interesting as we are dealing with different world views (magic, science, different relgions).

I mentioned it before, one of type of people who probably can really throw lights on this TT debates are really the medical anthropologist or nursing anthropologist (they are definetely familiar with different world views and stuff like that).

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I think it depends on what one is doing with the critique. For example, if you claim to be a demon possession expert, I'd expect you to truly be an expert and be very verses in the subject if you are testifying on my behalf at a trial (should I ever become possessed.) However if you are just throwing out a critique i.e. opinion during a conversation, I wouldn't expect you to be an expert. Of course, I am certainly free (and in fact obligated) to decide how much of your critique I am willing to believe or accept based on my level of education in the matter. Additionally your critique will have to be very convincing for me personally because I have already formed an opinion on the matter based on my level of education.

Good point. Especially about being aware of the context that this question is raised as it might require different depth of expertise. Also good point about one probably has some opinion base on one's knowledge level already... and I would add one's experience level with a particular topic.

But I digress. In nursing, being able to diagnose an "energy field alteration" relies on objectively feeling/assessing such alterations: "vacant/hole/spike...wave...tingling/dense/flowing" (Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary 19th ed. pg 2611). I certainly don't posses the ability to assess a "spike" or a "flowing" energy field. Therefore this evidence is all I need to critique this diagnosis and decide it is not for me. And any critique to the opposite would have to be very convincing to get me to change my mind. Therefore, if you come to me and say, "I think energy fields is a good diagnosis and I think you should use it... you better know a lot about it." Because I tend to be quite pragamatic, your critique should have some solid evidence to get me on board.

Hmmmm... I think I may have assumed that both side should have equal knowlege level (at least approximately equal). That is probably not a valid assumption. Come to think of it, your scenerio make quite a bit of sense. That is the one who is trying to prove (or "selling" the idea) something should have in depth knowlege but not to the one who is "buying" it. That is just being pragmatic because there are all kinds of ideas out there and it is just not possible to be in depth in most of the ideas.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion