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

For an opposing view, here's an interesting report on this topic:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/tt2.html

Although James Randi, the famous magician and skeptic, has a standing offer of over $1 million dollars to anyone who can prove they can accurately detect an energy field, the prize remains unclaimed. Out of all the thousands of Therapeutic Touch practitioners, only one person has even tried, and she failed.

For more information about James Randi:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
For an opposing view, here's an interesting report on this topic:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/tt2.html

Although James Randi, the famous magician and skeptic, has a standing offer of over $1 million dollars to anyone who can prove they can accurately detect an energy field, the prize remains unclaimed. Out of all the thousands of Therapeutic Touch practitioners, only one person has even tried, and she failed.

For more information about James Randi:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

.

Quackwatch is run by Stephen Barrett, M.D, a retired psychiatrist who writes out of his basement ...a place he should stay in. He recently made a fool out of himself in court...something he seems to do on a regular basis, except this time he almost came unglued. Randi is a magician and is not about to let the money go. I think it was Gary Swartz, Ph.D. who has a story about the run around in trying to get the big bucks. So...bringing up these two items is a waste of bandwidth, particularly since in my post above I told you about Dr. Becker who among others has measured the "electric body." Last time I checked, Dr. Becker was at LSU-Shreveport...give him a call.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nursing assistant.

OK guys, time to dip your toes in the pool of enlightenment:

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a broken fan belt and a flat tire.

The darkest hour is just before dawn. So if you're going to steal your neighbour's milk, that's the time to do it.

Never test the depth of the water with both feet.

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.

If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.

The quickest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it

back in your pocket.

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works.

Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your lips are moving.

Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

It is interesting to me that you choose to use EBP as a reason to negate one particular diagnosis--and then state you cannot support NANDA-I because of that one diagnosis. There is plenty of RESEARCH that supports that approximately 85% of what is done in health care is NOT evidence-based. Does that mean we should only do the 15% that is?

Energy fields are part of ayurevedic medicine, Traditional Chinese Medicine (meridians), NAtive American medicine, Tibetan medicine...and the list goes on and on.

There is no definitive research on quite a lot of things that we as nurses do--do you refuse to do ALL of these things? Why not simply say, "I don't accept this worldview, therefore I will not use this diagnosis" or "This is not my area of expertise, therefore I will not use this diagnosis" rather than responding so negatively. There is some research that supports TT (which, by the way, is only one of many modalities that uses energy fields), and there is some that refutes it (and the study by the teenager that got so much publicity was so fraught with methodological error that it only got published in JAMA because it was so anti a traditional WESTERN medical view!). However, there is SUBSTANTIAL research supporting the effectiveness of accupuncture (and more is being conducted by the NCCAM currently), which is also based on energy. I would say the jury is still out on whether or not we can accurately measure the phenomenon (energy fields) at all---but certainly you cannot negate all of the research in physics that definitively proves that ALL LIVING BEINGS have energy fields---perhaps the issue is that we haven't figured out a research method yet that accurately allows us to test energy modalities.

The scientific method can help us, but if our minds are closed, we will never be open to seeing the proof that is in front of us.

Check the research by Janet Quinn that looked at Therapeutic Touch, but don't forget that TT is JUST ONE modality--look at the NCCAM site for studies on accupuncture!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Pain Management.

This sounds like I am shooting myself in the foot, but I'm really not...

Research demonstrating the efficacy or mechanisms of acupuncture does not prove the existence of bioenergy or energy fields; it merely documents the efficacy or biomedical mechanism.

I would say more but that would really take this thread off-topic [long discussion].

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Ok, so if you think accupuncture research only looks at the mechanism, I can see your view. But what about physics? What about all the work that has been done in that field? Are we just to negate hard science and say it isn't relevant because we don't know how to measure it? AND, let's look at this from a cultural aspect--there are MANY non-western cultures in which people will TELL YOU that their energy flow is "blocked", "unbalanced", etc. So, do we only give credence to things that are Western medicine? And, if so, then we better start holding ALL of Western medicine to the same standard that we hold non-Western medicine to...that should dramatically reduce the ICD-10, DSM-IC, NANDA and any other standardized taxonomy--probably most especially the CPT codes since MANY, MANY, MANY of those interventions have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN SCIENTIFIC, RESEARCH-BASED FACT!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Actually, I think you are right. That has to be the standard. Guess I was just despairing of the lack of any real presentation of evidence, but I can see what you mean. If we drag nursing into the realm of philosophy and whatnot, pandora's box will have been opened. (oops, maybe it already has!)

So yes, lets stay on task: evidence based evaluation. So tt proponents, what have you got?

1

Up Vote Up Vote ×

It is interesting to me that you choose to use EBP as a reason to negate one particular diagnosis--and then state you cannot support NANDA-I because of that one diagnosis. There is plenty of RESEARCH that supports that approximately 85% of what is done in health care is NOT evidence-based. Does that mean we should only do the 15% that is?

Energy fields are part of ayurevedic medicine, Traditional Chinese Medicine (meridians), NAtive American medicine, Tibetan medicine...and the list goes on and on. I have had nurses from many non-American countries tell me that this diagnosis is the ONE that they can use with their patients that makes sense to them, because they describe their condition as "blocked energy" or "decreased energy flow", etc. It fits very well with the Traditional Chinese Medicine, Japanese medicine, ayurvedic, traditional Brazilian, Native American, etc--basically every model out there EXCEPT Western medicine. And, if NANDA is NANDA-International, then it should be open to beliefs outside of America.

There is no definitive research on quite a lot of things that we as nurses do--do you refuse to do ALL of these things? Why not simply say, "I don't accept this worldview, therefore I will not use this diagnosis" or "This is not my area of expertise, therefore I will not use this diagnosis" rather than responding so negatively. There is some research that supports TT (which, by the way, is only one of many modalities that uses energy fields), and there is some that refutes it (and the study by the teenager that got so much publicity was so fraught with methodological error that it only got published in JAMA because it was so anti a traditional WESTERN medical view!). However, there is SUBSTANTIAL research supporting the effectiveness of accupuncture (and more is being conducted by the NCCAM currently), which is also based on energy. I would say the jury is still out on whether or not we can accurately measure the phenomenon (energy fields) at all---but certainly you cannot negate all of the research in physics that definitively proves that ALL LIVING BEINGS have energy fields---perhaps the issue is that we haven't figured out a research method yet that accurately allows us to test energy modalities.

Also, you are confusing the issue of INTERVENTION with DIAGNOSIS in this whole posting---how did your question get to be about TT? TT would be a potential intervention, I suppose (Quinn's work would indicate it could be, others would refute that--I am not swayed either direction because there hasn't been enough work done). The diagnosis itself is about "Disruption of the flow of energy surrounding a person's being that results in disharmony of the body, mind, and/or spirit"--nothing there about interventions. Some would use TT, I guess, others would use meditation, T'ai chi, chi gong, yoga, guided imagery, and the list goes on. But I think there is danger in only accepting a Western world view...and if you are TRULY arguing it from a EBP viewpoint, we'd better hold all of Western medicine--diagnosis AND treatment--to the very same standard. IF we do that, ALL of the diagnostic and intervention taxonomies are going to get shortened quite a bit!

I do agree with you that we need more research--but to blast an organization because of one thing you don't agree with, when there are TONS of things we do everyday that exist in our taxonomies that have NO basis in research--that doesn't make much sense to me.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nursing assistant.
1

1? I am sorry, I am not up on posting stuff, and this may be something that means something. or maybe a miss print!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
---but certainly you cannot negate all of the research in physics that definitively proves that ALL LIVING BEINGS have energy fields---perhaps the issue is that we haven't figured out a research method yet that accurately allows us to test energy modalities.

No problem with the idea that living beings produce energy. Even in Western meds we do things like ECGs, EEGs, etc. that are specifically built to detect and display such energy. The big difference with these vs. individual auras is that the results of such monitoring (and even energy dispensing) is predictability and repeatability. Even with accupuncture, there are demonstrations, such as pain control during surgical procedures, that can and have been reproduced. Where is this in regards to human auras/energy fields?

Oh.. btw.. don't point to some TT-backed publication. While it doesn't necessarily denote a lack of validity for supportive arguements, it does smack of self-serving interests. I shouldn't have to be a TT devotee to be able to verify the mere existence of the phenomenon.

The issue with the NANDA taxonomy (for me at least) is that this particular Dx is conspicuous in its difference from the rest of the entire list. It gives it the patina of an organization bowing to a well-placed constituency and not to any particular belief that there is value-added by this single paean to alternative meds.

And just like an airline passanger looks at the coffee-ring stain on the drop down tray table and wonders about how sloppy the engine maintenance has been, having a dx on the NANDA taxonomy that appears to bow to political interest rather than objective results causes a rise in doubt about the rigor used to compile the rest of the list.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nursing assistant.
No problem with the idea that living beings produce energy. Even in Western meds we do things like ECGs, EEGs, etc. that are specifically built to detect and display such energy. The big difference with these vs. individual auras is that the results of such monitoring (and even energy dispensing) is predictability and repeatability. Even with accupuncture, there are demonstrations, such as pain control during surgical procedures, that can and have been reproduced. Where is this in regards to human auras/energy fields?

Oh.. btw.. don't point to some TT-backed publication. While it doesn't necessarily denote a lack of validity for supportive arguements, it does smack of self-serving interests. I shouldn't have to be a TT devotee to be able to verify the mere existence of the phenomenon.

The issue with the NANDA taxonomy (for me at least) is that this particular Dx is conspicuous in its difference from the rest of the entire list. It gives it the patina of an organization bowing to a well-placed constituency and not to any particular belief that there is value-added by this single paean to alternative meds.

And just like an airline passanger looks at the coffee-ring stain on the drop down tray table and wonders about how sloppy the engine maintenance has been, having a dx on the NANDA taxonomy that appears to bow to political interest rather than objective results causes a rise in doubt about the rigor used to compile the rest of the list.

Wow! impressive post.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
-but certainly you cannot negate all of the research in physics that definitively proves that ALL LIVING BEINGS have energy fields---perhaps the issue is that we haven't figured out a research method yet that accurately allows us to test energy modalities.

A science teacher friend just told me that there has never been any experiment yet that has shown quantum to be wrong.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion