to me, it's the ultimate measure of desperation on the part of nurses to develop independence from physicians. that it has been turned into a "science" demeans the nursing profession terribly!
while there can be certainly a psychological/placebo effect, the seriousness with which even some phd's in nursing believe in literal truth of therapeutic touch simply amazes me.
it's witchcraft. sheer absolute nonsense in its highest refined form. the techniques are quite laughable, and have no place in medicine, any more than folk remedies supplied by witch doctors.
yet at virtually every major university, there are ladies with phd's running around who literally believe they've developed these powers in their hands. that they can "ruffle" and "realign" forces.
to many, this is the holy grail of nursing. to me, it's delusionary.
I guess this means YOU WON'T LOOK at any of the studies suggested. END OF DISCUSSION. You and your brother already know it all. Got it. Why bother pretending to have a discussion? Continue preaching to the choir.
Most of those studies deal w/ debunking the science of medicine. I thought that, unlike others, YOU stated you didn't feel the compulsive need to attack the credibility of science in order to 'bring it down' to the level of opinion, such as TT . . .
Most of those studies deal w/ debunking the science of medicine. I thought that, unlike others, YOU stated you didn't feel the compulsive need to attack the credibility of science in order to 'bring it down' to the level of opinion, such as TT . . .
~faith,
Timothy.
Timothy, don't put words in my mouth. I don't feel the need to attack the credibility of science ( and I think you mean only Newtonian science here). Dr. Krieger' s research on the effects of TT on hemoglobin is not attacking the credibility of science.
I was thinking about you today. Your position is, your religious belief says that only your brand of prayer is effective in healing. You can not credit any other method of healing because you have been taught anything else would be satanic in origin. Am I understanding you correctly? Additionally, you argue, this should not be considered elitism because it is a religous conviction.
You feel that TT is favored over your particular type of prayer, and is a core nursing belief, but should not be.
I think we have already said, TT is not favored as a core belief, and should be offered as an elective only. My nursing program actually discussed both prayer and TT. They were not taught. I believe both prayer and TT are methods of healing. It is true, is it not, that many if not most people in this country have been brought up in a religious faith, and have experience with prayer? We could argue that they don't need to be taught this. However, they may not be members of your particular religous sect. But, your religous belief is that their prayer is ineffective, not elitism, just your belief. I am not going to make any value judgment about this.
It is your belief as I understand it. And, you feel stongly that TT is satanic in origin, and worthless, and should not be offered to nurses whether they want it or not, unless your particular type of prayer is offered as well. Am I understanding you correctly?
it's easier and more accurate for me to look at the end results. if it were effective, it wouldn't be a secret that only a priviledged few would be in on. it would be commonplace practice. after all, there's no cost of delivering this. there's no expense like drugs, no equipment, no supplies. the nurses are already there. why wouldn't they run their hands over them a bit and *poof* the patients would be better? hospitals would be thrilled to have such a low cost intervention! imagine how much money they could save on drugs!
wouldn't there be places that offered tt instead of traditional medicine? if it were effective, those clinics would be packed, wouldn't they? how can you explain their nonexistance?
if someone told me that eating enough pinto beans would make you pass enough gas to fly (that's about as serious a claim as tt is), i'd have to look around to see people flying to believe this claim, regardless of which orchestrated studies they pointed out. they could even call it science if they wanted to. they could explain it any way they wanted to. but i'd still have to see people flying to suspend my disbelief. which comes to our problem. you're not offering me any tangible proof that i can see for myself. and isn't it funny that all these other nurses also don't believe it for the same reason? where is the consensus?
why don't you explain why the results aren't obvious and commonplace? are disbelievers sending out negative energy to obscure the truth?
i've seen a demonstration of tt and it was preposterous. just utterly ridiculous, and only of placebo value to someone who wanted it for psychological reasons. not substantially different than witchcraft or voodoo.
nanda does have a diagnosis of "disturbed energy field". so some in academia have pushed this through nanda. does this really belong in our profession as nursing knowledge?
i think we should also have "christian prayer deficit" as well as "muslim prayer deficit " and "voodoo deficit". do we need nanda labels for those as well?
tt has demeaned the profession, and sidetracked us into silliness. it undermines our credibility as professionals. if we're to have credibility, our practices must be based on evidence.
hmm... since tt is based on quantum physics, then i guess any scientist who studies quantum physics would be an expert in tt. after all, they'd have a superb understanding of it. much better than the originators of tt. i wonder why they haven't documented this phenomena where the material world can be influenced with thought directed energy fields? is it part of a big conspiracy against society, so that western medicine can wring dollars from us while it kills us?
let's get real. tt and science in the same sentence is a contradiction in terms. tt is faith based gobbledygook. any credible scientist would laugh at the "science" linking tt with quantum physics. what a joke!
Did you just see the list of very qualified and well known (credible) scientists that I posted? Really, I put the info and list of real scientists right in front of you and you come back with a post such as this? What is the problem here? I'm in personal communication with some of these guys...maybe you should also contact them, LOL! Maybe your hearing will be better than your vision.
And SO CAN THE EASTERN RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHIES SUCH AS THOSE THAT TT ARE BASED UPON.
My Point, exactly.
The arrogant elitism to which I refer to is this unrealisitic need/desire to pass this Eastern RELIGION off as 'science' to the exclusion of other religions.
My religious beliefs are indeed best expressed in a religious vein. The SAME holds true for the Eastern religious beliefs that serve as the basis for TT.
Your attempt at trying to link TT with Eastern and/or religious philosophy is very weak and does not make a point. I think you continue to use this argument. Quantum physics explains energy based modalities (and many ancient practices) in a scientic manner. Since that seems to be what you desire...it's there for you. So please drop the "Eastern religious philosophy" link.
actually, my brother is one of the foremost scientists in the country (with an outstanding knowledge of quantum physics and a phd from georgia tech), whom i've spoken to about tt. he found the concepts and conclusions "completely ridiculous" and laughable. i have to trust his judgement when it comes to understanding quantum physics, which is the ground floor of your claims.
psuedo-science "research" is conducted by "researchers" with an agenda to prove their theories correct. there is a fair amount of it out there. and these folks call what they do science. i don't recognize it as such. their conclusions involve interpretation and judgement. for example, if a "researcher" reports his/her results as 87% effective, what does that mean or prove to me? does this make it solid science? how can i evaluate their methods and techniques? i have to rely on mainstream peer review in the scientific community.
if there were any substantial proof, the scientific community would be squarely aligned behind practices such as tt. it would be easy to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. scientists formerly skeptical of the practice would be embracing it. why aren't they?
if there were any substantial benefit to this practice, there would be HOARDS of people practicing it. burn units would be full of tt practioners causing healing energy to flow, etc. hospitals would be set up as tt hospitals providing miraculous wound healing, etc. we surely wouldn't be giving as much pain medication. why isn't this so? it would certainly give a hospital a HUGE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. the market would ensure that this practice was rewarded to the extent that it would be a common practice. the ABSENCE OF THIS ALONE tells me that practices such as tt aren't effective, and that there isn't a substantial, demonstrative benefit beyond a placebo effect. can you tell me where the hospital offering tt miracles is? can you tell me why comparitively few nurses believe in this practice? if it's so beneficial, why isn't it used every day, in every hospital?
the absence of any substantial benefit limits the practice to those who believe based on faith.
sorry, but i've got to call unproven nonsense as exactly what it is: unproven nonsense.
Again, look at my list of scientists who tower over your brother. They have actually taken the time to explore. And the rest of your post shows a complete lack of knowledge about the healthcare marketplace. Everything you said is totally false.
Zenman: I agree that each of the above references contains some truths, but that doesn't mean that PROFESSIONAL nurses should resort to practices that aren't based on evidence.
Did I just post a list of studies or am I hallucinating?
it's easier and more accurate for me to look at the end results. if it were effective, it wouldn't be a secret that only a priviledged few would be in on. it would be commonplace practice. after all, there's no cost of delivering this. there's no expense like drugs, no equipment, no supplies. the nurses are already there. why wouldn't they run their hands over them a bit and *poof* the patients would be better? hospitals would be thrilled to have such a low cost intervention! imagine how much money they could save on drugs!
Doctors at Queens in Honolulu "ordered" TT quite a bit...especially when nothing else seemed to be working...or when the patient requested it. I worked there, by the way.
It is your belief as I understand it. And, you feel stongly that TT is satanic in origin, and worthless, and should not be offered to nurses whether they want it or not, unless your particular type of prayer is offered as well. Am I understanding you correctly?
I don't feel 'strongly' that it is satanic. I think the world is full of choices, just like it is 'energy'. The choices you make are important. I feel that 'prayer' is the best use of the 'energy' that others would use for TT.
I think that just like prayer, TT SHOULD be available to individual nurses as an adjunct to their practice. Just as my particular understanding of prayer should be used in MY practice.
I just don't think that nursing can teach that as a part of its core knowledge without being hypocritical at least, divisive at most.
Spirituality and how we access it is a HIGHLY individual choice. How on earth is nursing supposed to provide a uniform understanding out of such individuality? A more important question: why should it even try?
Or, more to the point, how can it do that without making value judgments placing more importance on one school of thought over another. Isn't, in fact, this the major resistance to referring to TT as faith-based? It puts it on the same playing field as my prayer.
And to the believers of TT: their faith is really real. Mine is just some belief system. That's the rub I have. I'm not dimissive of TT. I'm dimissive of the idea that TT deserves a higher value judgment than MY beliefs.
You quote one study done by an eleven year old girl refuting TT as a modality.
I can't let them take the blame for that. I'm guilty of posting the info about that article and, as was stated previously, I wasn't offering it as scientific evidence that TT doesn't work.
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
Most of those studies deal w/ debunking the science of medicine. I thought that, unlike others, YOU stated you didn't feel the compulsive need to attack the credibility of science in order to 'bring it down' to the level of opinion, such as TT . . .
~faith,
Timothy.