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've looked at a fair amount of the evidence, none of which crosses the threshold for me to believe in tt as a rational nurse carrying out my duty to base my practice on evidence. i'd honestly have to say you'd have to be either deluded or gullible to believe these studies prove anything. i'm not trying to be mean spirited here.. just honest.
the obvious point here is that if it's so effective, why isn't it universally accepted? for example, i'd say antibiotics have near universal acceptance. why not tt? this is something that no one here will address. instead, all you do is provide anecdotal evidence, and point to these studies over and over. is the scientific community deaf, dumb and blind to a valuable practice that would provide immense benefits if it was true?
could it be that the consensus of scientific opinion finds tt to be hogwash?
heh. like myra levine, all i want is for tt practitioners to call themselves faith healers, not nurses who heal. honesty in advertising goes a long way:).
Wow! I am curious as to which of your "evidence based" powers you used to determine the content of my emotional needs, traumahawk.
i said 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. that's a possibility. i didn't state it as a certainty. there are other possibilites as well... see the above post for a couple more:). feel free to add to the list!
What graduate school are you attending? I did a few papers while obtaining my MSN, there is qualititive nursing research to support TT. Have you read all the citations I posted? It does support T.T
I only see your feelings no evidence to support.
For nursing to move forward, lateral violence like this discussion needs to stop. To have an honest discussion, one needs to respect each others beliefs and be respectful. I think this discussion is boarding on lateral violence which is not helping the image of nurses.
What graduate school are you attending? I did a few papers while obtaining my MSN, there is qualititive nursing research to support TT. Have you read all the citations I posted? It does support T.T
I only see your feelings no evidence to support.
For nursing to move forward, lateral violence like this discussion needs to stop. To have an honest discussion, one needs to respect each others beliefs and be respectful. I think this discussion is boarding on lateral violence which is not helping the image of nurses.
Section Editor(s): Schaffner, Marilyn MSN, RN, CGRN
Once again, TT, PHds who formulate policy are part of the nursing fabric, I suggest you obtain your MSN and PHd are formulate nursing practice.
I think it's more than a bit of a stretch to suggest that someone that disagrees with you in a voluntary forum is 'lateral violence'. If this were a work environment or some less voluntary forum, you might have a minor case.
But, you CAN walk away from this discussion at any point. So, to suggest that those that disagree with you are doing you 'violence' is to also affirm that you are enabling that behavior with your active and voluntary participation in it.
So for nursing to move forward, we all have to accept your opinion, or we are being violent towards you? A nice, insular argument. But you forgot one thing. YOU moved away from the discussion at hand by making personal accusations against other posters on this thread. Not I.
Indigo girl, you make some good points and I think it's been a good debate.
Our difference of opinion is on the issue of POLICY: what should belong to nursing's core knowledge and what should be more confined to the spirituality that ALL of us bring to our practice, in one way or another. I just don't believe that nursing's core knowledge can adequately express, in a uniform way, such individuality.
More to the point, I think the effort to do so is divisive.
You argue that it's a minor point and people can take it or leave it as they see fit. Maybe so.
But my counter is that BY ENCOURAGING NURSING'S CORE KNOWLEDGE TO BE A BUFFET, you degrade its concept as 'core' to nursing. I think it is this very reason that our Ivory Tower is relegated to obscurity. Our 'core' - as defined by them - is no core at all.
Rather than being the engine of nursing, it's the pin-striping.
But, I think this debate has pretty much run its course for me.
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.
I think Spiritual Distress is still around as both an actual and a risk-for diagnosis, but I can't seem to find anything from 2006 which confirms that it's still on the NANDA list.
What graduate school are you attending? I did a few papers while obtaining my MSN, there is qualititive nursing research to support TT. Have you read all the citations I posted? It does support T.T
I only see your feelings no evidence to support.
For nursing to move forward, lateral violence like this discussion needs to stop. To have an honest discussion, one needs to respect each others beliefs and be respectful. I think this discussion is boarding on lateral violence which is not helping the image of nurses.
Section Editor(s): Schaffner, Marilyn MSN, RN, CGRN
Once again, TT, PHds who formulate policy are part of the nursing fabric, I suggest you obtain your MSN and PHd are formulate nursing practice.
that i'm being violent toward you by expressing my opinions about where tt belongs in nursing (not at all and that it's charlatanism) as a profession is... well... about as preposterous as the claims that tt is backed by any form of real scientific evidence. i hope you don't need to visit an ER. the idea that someone who disagrees with you victimizes you only promotes an image of nurses as whiners (a real problem). was myra levine being violent toward martha rogers when she called tt charlatanism in the american journal of nursing? was that "lateral violence"?
there is no evidence, just opinion? i'd say the evidence abounds that tt isn't effective. otherwise, it would be as common as giving normal saline. on the contrary, it's the evidence you're pointing out that has been found overwhelmingly deficient. i'd suggest you walk into a hospital and tell them they need to include tt in all their treatment plans and see the reaction. you can even point to all these studies showing such great benefits. you'll find that the hard reality is the concrete you'll be sitting on after you're bounced out the door in short order. welcome to the real world.
i need to get a phd to have an opinion on the place tt should have in this profession? um, who made that rule? Martha E. Rogers? (i'm putting extra stress on her middle initial.. it somehow lends validity to her theories). i'm only pointing out that the Empress has no clothes, and tt is without practical substance.
it is tragic for this profession that those in academia have wasted so many resources spinning mountains of fluff. for nursing to move forward as a profession, we must base our practices on real world evidence.
again, i invite coherent discussion as to how tt is derived from quantum physics, and how this proves the validity of the theories to the extent that this should be a practice taught in nursing education and to the extent that we can present to the public that it's a valid modality for nurses to offer as treatment.
are we accountable to the public to base our practices on evidence? can we be credible otherwise?
Double blind studies are not that valid since they do not (can't) measure consciousness.
Sorry this reply missed the train by a couple of weeks. I don't think it would be necessary to measure consciousness, unless the study was testing the claim that TT can alter consciousness. Generally we're testing whether TT can relieve pain or speed healing from a disease - things that are quite amenable to study with RCT's.
Sorry this reply missed the train by a couple of weeks. I don't think it would be necessary to measure consciousness, unless the study was testing the claim that TT can alter consciousness. Generally we're testing whether TT can relieve pain or speed healing from a disease - things that are quite amenable to study with RCT's.
Eric, you are not even at the station! Since "consciousness" can't be measured, and since it is a factor in ALL studies,that means that even a double blind study has limitations.
Eric, you are not even at the station! Since "consciousness" can't be measured, and since it is a factor in ALL studies,that means that even a double blind study has limitations.
"Pseudoscience is a term applied to a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges substantially from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by sufficient scientific research"
traumahawk99
596 Posts
i've looked at a fair amount of the evidence, none of which crosses the threshold for me to believe in tt as a rational nurse carrying out my duty to base my practice on evidence. i'd honestly have to say you'd have to be either deluded or gullible to believe these studies prove anything. i'm not trying to be mean spirited here.. just honest.
the obvious point here is that if it's so effective, why isn't it universally accepted? for example, i'd say antibiotics have near universal acceptance. why not tt? this is something that no one here will address. instead, all you do is provide anecdotal evidence, and point to these studies over and over. is the scientific community deaf, dumb and blind to a valuable practice that would provide immense benefits if it was true?
could it be that the consensus of scientific opinion finds tt to be hogwash?
heh. like myra levine, all i want is for tt practitioners to call themselves faith healers, not nurses who heal. honesty in advertising goes a long way:).