fritzer

SFCARDIAC RN, In no way do I support TT as a highly probable modality yet on some level what ever interaction human to human will have some change occur. 2 people cannot interact without some dynamic occurring whether TT is in theory being practiced or love at first sight. Casn we measure that ? YES. Can we attribute it to some finite object of study? Maybe. I do espouse testing of hypothesis to help augment care of human beings or animals for that matter. Testing hypothesis is moving toward probability of chance occurence or strengthened correlations useful for practice but not the total picture. I am very interested in the other ways of knowing experienced such as intuition, gut fellings, bad vibes, "felt someone looking at me", was thinking about you and you called, especially as it occurs in nursing and to differing degrees among nurses and otrher persons. Thank you for your response, more food for thought.

This is to SFCARDIACRN as a friendly FYI. Nothing in science is ever proven. Tah is a basic tenet of the scientific method. Quantitative research results are stated in terms of likelihood or probability. Qualitative research is a whole other matter under which many of the arguments against energy fields, other ways of knowing things can be expressed. Among every individual in all probabilty no two are alike and that alone makes "proof" nebulous. There are too many variables among the interventions in the fields of caring i.e. nursing to make patent generalizations to human on the whole. Maybe garlic does wonders for some, but as a cure all, just like penicillin, a single means does not justify the totality of the end result. The human variable, no matter the intervention, gives rise to many eventualities including human to human field interactions be it electrical, quantum physcics, or mere eye contact. JUST THOUGHTS. NO REPLY NECESSARY.

Consider that maybe you have other ways of knowing as a nurse sometimes called intuition, gut feeling, second sense, or you just don't like a person, or do but can't put your finger on it. I defended the energy field concept for my graduate comprehensive exam to educate myself and to exhausitively come to a decision on this issue. I will not attempt to dissuade nay sayers but electrical and energy fields exist in the surrounding environment and we are influenced in many ways by them i.e xray, electrical poles/lines, heat, blah bla....

Thanks for the feedbac. The information is all over the place as to what is helpful. I have most every listed reference of the suggested resources and feel there is enough information for many years off studey although I have been a school nurse for 17 years. Our study group is outlining segments of the outline and sharing the outline, then meeting to discuss. We have nurses joining us just to expand their knowledge and it looks to be a fun as well as studious endeavor. I found a resource mo-media.com which a different approach altogether as opposed to memorizing what seems an potential infinite amount of information. I ordered the study guide for kicks and I'll let everyone know via this site in a week or two.

As I understand 504 is an antidiscrimination law inacted when a student enters the school. IDEA is an equal access to educate thta is applicable outside the school building per say. A student may be bothe 504 and IDEA qualified and may have an Individualized Health Plan under either.

I just hired our District's first male nurse and am so happy to have a male presence in the health office for both sexes of students. I have not respolved how in our conservative community of how to deal wioth the issue of maturation education or exams of female students. In any other practice setting it would not matter but schools????

Seems like a bad semantical dilemma. Assessment is a nursing intervention.

Is there a study guide out there? I see Martha Bergren refers to one but where is it?

I am in the process of studying for the exam and also would like any helpful tips:uhoh3: