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.
Einstein (in reference to Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion): "Kepler had to recognize that even the most lucid logical mathematical theory was of itself no guarantee of truth, becoming meaningless unless it was checked against the most exacting observations in natural science."
Einstein (regarding Galileo): "Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics - indeed, of modern science altogether."
~faith,
Timothy.
I don't think Einstein ever said that religious dogma should be taught in public schools.
I don't think Einstein ever said that religious dogma should be taught in public schools.
Neither have I.
I am saying that TT is 'religious dogma' that doesn't have a place in nursing's core knowledge.
I'm not advocating for prayer's place in that pantheon of knowledge but for the exclusion of all faith-based assertions in favor of evidence based practices (read health SCIENCE).
And therefore, Einstein's quotes above are on point to my argument.
TT in my experience has not been associated with any ceremony at all, just the client and the practitioner interacting. It can be very unobtrusive and used in the clinical setting if that is where the client happens to be, no need for candles or any props. Zenman is correct about ceremony however.
i'm still waiting for that explanation of quantum physics which proves that tt is a science. i'm dissapointed that no one has explained this here in a logical and coherent manner. if i understood a science concept, i'd be able to explain it in a sensical way my own words.
It's a ceremony...kinda like the one a shaman sets up...or Dr. Denton Cooley making rounds with all his underlings...very much a healing thing...the more elaborate the better.
i'd call that fluff... not science. and i really doubt the physician relies on ceremony to make an antibiotic work. i do keep forgetting that all we really need are sugar pills and normal saline! you can learn some incredible things online. and to think of all that time i wasted studying pharmacology!
after seeing how tt is science, i've decided to build a bridge to the moon using cans of cheese whiz. after all, the whiz is in a can, and it comes out when you press the button. therefore i can build a bridge to the moon and mine enough helium 3 to power the earth for thousands of years! yay for science!
however, one must press the button with absolute love in his/her heart (the heart isn't just an organ, it's a repository of love). only a select few of elite button pushers can make this work properly.
the above bit of nonsense makes as much sense as tt.
And then one night I walk onto a unit where all the nurses are sitting down and ask why a patient is moaning. The nurses replied that they had done everything they could including max meds. I walked into the room where an elderly Japanese woman was moaning with pain from a fractured shoulder. We nodded at each other and I held her shoulder for a few minutes. She could feel what some of you say can't happen. She said "thank you" and I left the room, stood outside for a minute and listened to her snore. Yes, I was a better nurse than anyone else on that floor.
in the first place, this is anecdotal evidence... which proves nothing. if we accepted anecdotal evidence as proof, we'd believe in everything from aliens to witches to ghosts. how does this prove that tt is science?
what is it that some of us say can't happen? calming a patient can do a lot to help. people are psychological beings. no one is disputing a placebo effect.
i'm still waiting for that explanation of quantum physics which proves that tt is a science. i'm dissapointed that no one has explained this here in a logical and coherent manner. if i understood a science concept, i'd be able to explain it in a sensical way my own words.
I see you are still having a great time over here. And why not? You are never going to get an answer that you will accept. We all know this by now.
But, no reason not to enjoy the ride, as I have no doubt whatsoever that you would agree. You know, there are many NANDA codes, I see no reason not to have JUST ONE for energy field dissonance or whatever they are calling it. It seems rather ungenerous of you to demand it's removal. But, the fact is, it exists.
I think we are discussing our different perceptions about the nature of reality. We can argue forever and ever about it, but we will not be able to perceive it in the same way. Personally, I could not care less. It makes absolutely no difference to me whether there is a NANDA code or not, or even whether the bulk of nursing embraces my version of reality or not. It is very real to me. I do not stay up at night worrying about how the public is viewing nurses who practice energetic modalites. Frankly, I can't see you doing this either. But, I can see you having fun with arguing about it. In the big picture of healthcare and the public, this is small bananas, and on some level, you know this. No one out there in the marketplace, is writing to any nursing boards complaining about it, and they probably never will. Those who want this will accept it. And those who don't for whatever reason, whether it's conflict with religous belief or a nature of reality thing, whatever it is, won't, IMHO. All this angst over a NANDA code, and calling this an acceptance into the core of nursing knowledge is nonsense. You have already said yourself that many if not most nurses do not believe this. And, we know there are many nursing theories. Does everyone accept them? Of course, not. Who cares? Which one, BTW, do you accept? Probably, none of them, I would bet. Does it make a difference in your practice. Probably, not. So, really, which one is it?
All this CONCERN about how nursing is viewed...please. If there was that much concern, I suspect we would be going about this discussion in a very different manner and many more nurses would be involved. But, they aren't. Maybe, they just don't care!!!
Is it science? I believe so and you don't. So? Demand away...No one is going to attempt to convince you because we have already tried in several ways...I think we are done with that.
You know, I think maybe we should have NANDA codes for deficits of religious need also. I would not have a problem with that. Clearly, one's personal version of reality may manifest as a religous need, and there should be no problem with coding for different sects. I do believe that perceived spiritual need is already a nursing diagnosis in some people's careplans.
At any rate, I thought you might enjoy this little video on reality perception.
I do think it is pertinent to our discussion, and suggest you stay with it to it's surprising ending. I suspect this is how it really works. So, respectfully, I submit this. Enjoy.
I see you are still having a great time over here. And why not? You are never going to get an answer that you will accept. We all know this by now.
But, no reason not to enjoy the ride, as I have no doubt whatsoever that you would agree. You know, there are many NANDA codes, I see no reason not to have JUST ONE for energy field dissonance or whatever they are calling it. It seems rather ungenerous of you to demand it's removal. But, the fact is, it exists.
I think we are discussing our different perceptions about the nature of reality. We can argue forever and ever about it, but we will not be able to perceive it in the same way. Personally, I could not care less. It makes absolutely no difference to me whether there is a NANDA code or not, or even whether the bulk of nursing embraces my version of reality or not. It is very real to me. I do not stay up at night worrying about how the public is viewing nurses who practice energetic modalites. Frankly, I can't see you doing this either. But, I can see you having fun with arguing about it. In the big picture of healthcare and the public, this is small bananas, and on some level, you know this. No one is writing to any nursing boards complaining about it, and they probably never will. Those who want this will accept it. And those who don't for whatever reason, whether it's conflict with religous belief or a nature of reality thing, whatever it is, won't, IMHO. All this angst over a NANDA code, and calling this an acceptance into the core of nursing knowledge is nonsense. You have already said yourself that many if not most nurses do not believe this. And, we know there are many nursing theories. Does everyone accept them? Of course, not. Who cares? Which one, BTW, do you accept? Probably, none of them, I would bet. Does it make a difference in your practice. Probably, not. So, really, which one is it?
All this CONCERN about how nursing is viewed...please. If there was that much concern, I suspect we would be going about this discussion in a very different manner and many more nurses would be involved. But, they aren't. Maybe, they just don't care!!!
Is it science? I believe so and you don't. So? Demand away...No one is going to attempt to convince you because we have already tried in several ways...I think we are done with that.
You know, I think maybe we should have NANDA codes for deficits of religious need also. I would not have a problem with that. Clearly, one's personal version of reality may manifest as a religous need, and there should be no problem with coding for different sects. I do believe that perceived spiritual need is already a nursing diagnosis in some people's careplans.
At any rate, I thought you might enjoy this little video on reality perception.
I do think it is pertinent to our discussion, and suggest you stay with it to it's surprising ending. I suspect this is how it really works. So, respectfully, I submit this. Enjoy.
Well, said, indigo girl. Like I said earlier, this has taken on the proportions of abortion and politics. People hear what they want to hear and that's it. Open minds need not apply.
Also, there actually ARE s couple of new NANDA diagnoses that are spirituality based. I can't remember exactly what they are but they are something along the lines of "readiness for increased religiosity". They are listed in the Sparks and Taylor Nursing Diagnosis book, which I no longer have.
Well, said, indigo girl. Like I said earlier, this has taken on the proportions of abortion and politics. People hear what they want to hear and that's it. Open minds need not apply.
Also, there actually ARE s couple of new NANDA diagnoses that are spirituality based. I can't remember exactly what they are but they are something along the lines of "readiness for increased religiosity". They are listed in the Sparks and Taylor Nursing Diagnosis book, which I no longer have.
what about an open mind to evidence based practice? you can be so closeminded in your faith that you accept preposterous evidence as "truth", because you have an emotional need to be a healer.
none of you has explained why tt isn't a universally accepted practice, if it's so reliable. logic and critical thinking have been tossed out the window. i guess there are just too many folks closeminded to charaltanism, and that's why tt is a practice known only to a few with magic hands :).
bluesky, BSN, RN
864 Posts
I don't think Einstein ever said that religious dogma should be taught in public schools.