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.
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.
In fact, it's right on point.
Quantum physics (in a nutshell: all the somethings in the universe are made of nothing; literally, the world is made of the same stuff as dreams.) explains the existence of God just as equally as it does TT. For you to arbitrarily decide it is an explanation of TT over God is YOUR value judgment. For me to look at the same data and see that it proves the hand of God in the universe is MINE.
You can call that science. But that 'science' is colored by your beliefs. Your 'beliefs' 'prove' the science; not the other way around.
And TT is indeed based on Eastern religions. Why should I drop what is a valid fact? Otherwise, what other 'ancient practices' were you referring to? You can deny it and call it science if you like. But the point of that exercise is the attempt to place your value system above others. "my religion is more important than yours because my religion isn't religion at all; mine is fact. Yours isn't".
I not so humbly disagree. You can call it religion. You can call it 'faith-based'. You can even call it 'science' if you like.
But to state that one value judgment of the spiritual nature of the world deserves placement within nursing's core knowledge to the exclusion of equally valid explanations is arrogant elitism.
The end result is not to gain a higher intellectual value for that one belief system, but a lessor intellectual value for nursing's core knowledge as a whole.
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.
if it were a valid treatment, it would have already spread like wildfire. it would be as commonplace as taking a temperature. people would be using it at home to avoid going to the doctor. i'd be using it. why wouldn't i? after all, it's really pretty simple, isn't it? can you tell me where the tt clinics are, if it's such an effective technique? i bet you can't. and that is the bottom line to this entire issue. it doesn't work in way that can be demonstrated reliably, else it would be universally practiced. it is faith and not science. i don't care how much you want it to be true. proving something of this magnitude would change the health care industry overnight. there would surely be a nobel prize in medicine awarded to a scientist who could prove this! where is that nobel prize? doh! there is none! why? is it a conspiracy among the towering scientists who tower over the scientists who tower over my brother? are you suggesting that your scientists are so noble that they frown on receiving the nobel prize?.
are you telling us all the nonbeliever nurses are deliberately turning a blind eye to a valid technique that has been proven to be effective? my mom has been a nurse for over 20 years. she's seen tt, and thinks it's just "silly". i truly believe my mom is a wonderful and caring nurse.
alas, if only she knew what you know, and could speak to those top scientists (who are apparently out of the loop when it comes to awarding nobel prizes) then she could have been curing people all these years! i'm not going to tell her about this, because she'd feel horribly guilty...
since we're tossing references here, i think people should examine the stuff that quackwatch offers. lots of references, etc. of course, double blind studies aren't accurate, are they? yet if they supported your view, i'm sure their accuracy would be unquestionable. heck, if they supported tt, i'd believe in it!
if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then by golly...
as far as providing tt, if a client wants it, or prayer, or voodoo, or whatever.... it's their right. i am all for patient comfort. hospitals have chaplains. i just don't think tt belongs in nursing science any more than other faith based measures.
it is just inanely simplistic to believe that if this was a valid technique, it wasn't discovered until 1970's! here we've got something that requires no technology, yet it lay undiscovered for eons until someone discovered the magic distance of 2 to 4 inches? surely, you've got to be kidding!
the danger of this sort of nonsense is that folks will embrace this therapy and end up dying because they rejected legitimate medical treatment. and that is a very real concern.
She also had her son come one day and lead the class in doing Tai Chi, which I refused due to my beliefs (it is Taoism, I am not a Taoist, therefore I don't do it). I don't discount the exercise and calming element of tai chi, but I don't like the religious aspect of it. You could probably have the same effect with any slow moving isotonic exercise and stretch program.
Actually Tai Chi has no more to do with Taoism than yoga to do with Hinduism. I don't know how you can compromise your religious beliefs by doing this exercise. I'd be interested to know how you came up to this opinion, if you don't mind me asking.
Quantum physics (in a nutshell: all the somethings in the universe are made of nothing; literally, the world is made of the same stuff as dreams.) explains the existence of God just as equally as it does TT. For you to arbitrarily decide it is an explanation of TT over God is YOUR value judgment. For me to look at the same data and see that it proves the hand of God in the universe is MINE.
You can call that science. But that 'science' is colored by your beliefs. Your 'beliefs' 'prove' the science; not the other way around.
And TT is indeed based on Eastern religions. Why should I drop what is a valid fact? Otherwise, what other 'ancient practices' were you referring to? You can deny it and call it science if you like. But the point of that exercise is the attempt to place your value system above others. "my religion is more important than yours because my religion isn't religion at all; mine is fact. Yours isn't".
I not so humbly disagree. You can call it religion. You can call it 'faith-based'. You can even call it 'science' if you like.
But to state that one value judgment of the spiritual nature of the world deserves placement within nursing's core knowledge to the exclusion of equally valid explanations is arrogant elitism.
The end result is not to gain a higher intellectual value for that one belief system, but a lessor intellectual value for nursing's core knowledge as a whole.
~faith,
Timothy.
the interesting thing is that i'm an agnostic yet i agree with you completely :).
let's call faith what it is. calling is science doesn't make it anything different.
let's keep this thread alive by not whining to the mods. to be honest, each of us feels the other side is, well... stupid or deluded or ignorant or something that isn't too terrifically positive. and we may have some heated exchanges. it's the nature of the internet and this sort of discussion.
i would hope we'd all agree that no one is truly being harmed here. anyone who reads this thread will make up their mind independently, based on their own beliefs and experiences.
to the proponents of tt, please explain directly here how tt is scientifically supported. don't give mountains of links. i can give a mountain of links to those who dispute its validity. we can muddle this with mounds of links. let's see some reason and in depth discussion of the exact science supporting these claims. i say it's unproven nonsense.
i truly want to know why the technique isn't universally accepted if it's so effective. can you imagine the health benefits to the multitudes? no one has given the first bit of discussion here.
No offense here traumahawk, but I don't think you really DO want to know why it's so effective since the information has been given to you via many links and personal accounts on this thread. You just don't care to open them.
It's simply a COMPLIMENTARY and ALTERNATIVE modality. No one here has said TT can cure cancer. It makes people feel better. It lowers their stress level. When their stress level is lowered they heal faster. Everyone of us knows that to be scientifically sound. Maybe that's why Johns Hopkins actually has an entire CAM Cancer center to help their patients as an adjunct to the traditional therapy they also receive. They tend to be a pretty "scientific" place.
I see no point in continuing this thread. It seems to have taken on the heated porportions of the abortion debate or politics: no one will be moved by these arguments because they choose not to be. It is a shame that a topic such as TT has come to this point. There realy are benefits to patients and to us as nurses who care for them. If if it's offered as a course in one school and one is not interested in taking then ..... Don't take it.
No offense here traumahawk, but I don't think you really DO want to know why it's so effective since the information has been given to you via many links and personal accounts on this thread. You just don't care to open them.
It's simply a COMPLIMENTARY and ALTERNATIVE modality. No one here has said TT can cure cancer. It makes people feel better. It lowers their stress level. When their stress level is lowered they heal faster. Everyone of us knows that to be scientifically sound. Maybe that's why Johns Hopkins actually has an entire CAM Cancer center to help their patients as an adjunct to the traditional therapy they also receive. They tend to be a pretty "scientific" place.
I see no point in continuing this thread. It seems to have taken on the heated porportions of the abortion debate or politics: no one will be moved by these arguments because they choose not to be. It is a shame that a topic such as TT has come to this point. There realy are benefits to patients and to us as nurses who care for them. If if it's offered as a course in one school and one is not interested in taking then ..... Don't take it.
how would you know what i've investigated? christian prayer makes people feel better too and provides the same sort of benefits. it lowers stress. there are doctors who recommend prayer. does that transform christian prayer into science?
of course, people are very complex physical and psychological beings. that isn't in dispute. of course supplementary techniques can be used. as i've said, i'm all for patient comfort. the real question is whether this modality belongs in the catagory of nursing knowledge. i say in the absence of evidence, it doesn't. i say that our duty to society is to have an evidence based practice.
on the issue of links, there are as many disputing tt as supporting it. what does this prove? it proves that i don't agree with your links any more than you'd agree with mine...
i don't accept anecdotal evidence as fact. i don't accept it with tt any more that i accepted life after death when my physician friend told me of a visit from a ghost telling him that a child would get well if the child's name was changed. certainly, the doctor believed it. but that doesn't mean it crossed my threshold of believability.
and if you don't want to continue reading this thread, then simply don't read it :). no one is forcing you to look :).
again, i'm asking for an indepth explanation of how tt is a science. i'd like to see it explained here... don't just lazily point me to a link and think i'm going to accept it as scientific fact.
in short, i think the nanda diagnosis of "disturbed energy field" should be deleted and has no place whatsoever in the body of knowledge we call nursing.
i've seen nurses with huge egos holding themselves out as elite practitioners based on their abilities with tt. i'm saying it demeans the nursing profession and is divisive.
if you want to offer tt to a client who accepts it, i'm not stopping you. i'm all for the palcebo effect. i'm all for client comfort. i'm all for prayer. i'm all for rat sacrifices if that's what the client believes and wants.
i just don't want to muddle medical science with faith.
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.
why wouldn't it be worth looking at? there is no need to apologize for that link any more than a link to the some institute of alternative healing's experiments which supposedly support tt.
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
In fact, it's right on point.
Quantum physics (in a nutshell: all the somethings in the universe are made of nothing; literally, the world is made of the same stuff as dreams.) explains the existence of God just as equally as it does TT. For you to arbitrarily decide it is an explanation of TT over God is YOUR value judgment. For me to look at the same data and see that it proves the hand of God in the universe is MINE.
You can call that science. But that 'science' is colored by your beliefs. Your 'beliefs' 'prove' the science; not the other way around.
And TT is indeed based on Eastern religions. Why should I drop what is a valid fact? Otherwise, what other 'ancient practices' were you referring to? You can deny it and call it science if you like. But the point of that exercise is the attempt to place your value system above others. "my religion is more important than yours because my religion isn't religion at all; mine is fact. Yours isn't".
I not so humbly disagree. You can call it religion. You can call it 'faith-based'. You can even call it 'science' if you like.
But to state that one value judgment of the spiritual nature of the world deserves placement within nursing's core knowledge to the exclusion of equally valid explanations is arrogant elitism.
The end result is not to gain a higher intellectual value for that one belief system, but a lessor intellectual value for nursing's core knowledge as a whole.
~faith,
Timothy.