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.
And therefore, Einstein's quotes above are on point to my argument.
~faith,
Timothy.
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."Einstein
traumahawk99 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.
Quantum physics EXPLAINS TT. Read what these physicists, who are experts in their fields say. You are going to be waiting until you act.
You might also read a book called Inner Bridges: A Guide to Energy Movement and Structure. In this book, an actual physician, Fritz Smith, will explain how western medicine actually proves eastern thought.
traumahawk99 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!
Let me break it down for you. Let's say you're a physician and you walk into the patients room in blue jeans and a t-shirt and tell them they need an antibiotic for their infection. In comparison, walk into the room with a suit and tie, and white jacket with stethoscope around your neck, followed by 10 residents, interns, medical students, etc. and tell the patient that you would like to prescribe an antibiotic that "will kill your infection very rapidly." Now, do you understand? And remember that placebos, even placebo surgery, are sometimes more effective than the real thing. Please remember that if nothing else. I have studied advanced pharm, but I also study humans.
traumahawk99 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?
Actually it proves a lot. Hugging your wife and kids is an anecdotal experience but it proves something. Call it a clinical field trial if you want. I wasn't trying to prove anything, except to show nurses that it's nice to have more tools in their toolkit.
"The body is not concerned with truth as an abstract concept, only with truth as an experience." Serge Kahili King, PhD. This describes the moment the patient and I had. It also explains the meeting a nun and I had in a Nepal airport. Our eyes meet when she walked in and as I was leaving, I had an irresistible urge to go over to her. We shook hands, she said something in another language, and we both burst out laughing. Double-blind that, LOL!
traumahawk99 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.
I for one do have an open mind and believe in evidence based practice. However, as I've said before, if even double-blind studies have their limitations, why would one push for absolute belief in them?
traumahawk99 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 .
I think you are the only one that is talking about reliability. Sometimes it works, sometimes surgery works, sometimes drugs work!
traumahawk99 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.
Then, if you have actually looked at the studies, some of which show the efficacy of TT, then what threshold are you using? Which do you use for say, an antibiotic study? Are you saying that you have different thresholds: that's not very scientific!
traumahawk99 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?
It's been addressed before. Do you really think JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine is going to promote this? I really think you can reason this out. It took a long time before hand washing was universally accepted, didn't it.
Joanna Ward, MD "Western medicine is astonishingly arrogant in its dismissal of these age-old traditions (alternative medicine). Although there is an increasing interest in these methods of healing by family doctors, they are still rejected outright by most hospital practitioners in the united Kingdom-perhaps because they are felt to challenge the whole scientific basis upon which our medicine stands and because they deal with things which cannot be measured by our methods."
O.T. Bonnett, M.D., in talking about his peers, stated that, "Unfortunately, like most physicians, they were trapped into rigid patterns of thought, belief, and action bought on through years of the intellectual brainwashing that has passed for medical education. Actually, doctors are poorly educated! Their education consists of training along a very narrow path, and they wear huge intellectual blinders as they go. Anything appearing in their intellectual peripheral vision is suspect, frightening, and likely to be ignored."
More from Dr. Bonnett..."The doctors finally graduate and finish training but with little real skill in applying it in life situations, for they have been trained not to get close to or familiar with their patients. Highly trained as they may be, they are virtually isolated from feelings, the humanity of their patients, and the world in general. Many new doctors are, therefore, both frightened and defensive."
And more..."Physicians have a vested interest in rejecting new ideas. Part of the reason for this is that most doctors have little training in deductive thinking. What serves as thought is mostly recalling, with accuracy, what has been previously memorized."
And finally..."One of the most compelling reasons physicians reject new ideas is fear of change and the need to protect their block of medical information, which serves as their clearest bridge to others and the world."
traumahawk99 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.
People who have an emotional need to be a healer usually fail in their quest unless someone gets them on the right path. Healers don't heal, people do, healers facilitate the process.
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.
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.
~faith,
Timothy.
Has someone been arguing that TT should be core nursing knowledge? I dont think so. If this modality was created by nurses then why not have it as an elective and people who want it can take it, the others can do something else. I've said this before
Are you saying that TT does not exist? You demanded research studies. They are out there so TT must exist and must be of some benefit.
You say that you are waiting for that explanation of quantum physics which proves that TT is a science. You don't have to wait as TT has been explained.
Dr. Rappenecker says, "As a young physician in the 80s, I turned to shiatsu because I constantly had the inkling that something was not quite right in the way classic western medicine was being practiced. It was as if the connection to the way life really is, was completely missing...it was missing a connection to the life of the patients in the hospital and practice. It also lacked every trace of what life meant to me. I wanted to know what this missing element was and to understand what truly defines health in relation to illness and that also must be a kind of definition of life itself."
And a few snippets from the inventor of the defibrillator, Dr. Bernard Lowen:
"Although physicians are increasingly able to cure disease and prolong life, the American public is suspicious, distrustful of, even antagonistic to, the profession. Doctors, uneasy, astonished, resentful, and angry, universally acknowledge a crisis in health care."
"In my view, the basic reason is that medicine has lost its way, if not its soul."
"The rot will continue until doctors reconnect with their tradition as healers."
"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"
Has someone been arguing that TT should be core nursing knowledge? I dont think so. If this modality was created by nurses then why not have it as an elective and people who want it can take it, the others can do something else. I've said this before
Actually, yes. That is the point of trying to make it 'science'.
Martha Rogers attempted to incorporate it into nursing. It's a danged NANDA dx.
I have no faith in graduate instructors avoiding the interjection of their 'faith' into the science of nursing.
I don't knock their faith. But, by including it in our core knowledge, they not only knock MY faith by comparison, but degrade our ability to have an objective and scientific body of knowledge.
the term art is used both as the outcome of work and the knowledge and skill of the workman. thus, there are works of art and the skillful and knowledgeable way of doing something to produce a desired effect. just as a drama or a symphony, the art of nursing can be viewed as a type of performing art. it can produce a relaxing, soothing, comforting effect and can be a joy to those watchful over a loved one that may be extremely ill. in this same vein, terms such as feeling, harmony, rhythm, tone, creativeness can be applied to nursing and art simultaneously. just as art is individualistic, so is the art of nursing. while one method appeals to a certain population and not another, so is the art of nursing.
nursing is itself an art. it can be drama, it can be dialogue, it can be a comedy. the patient can be viewed as an inspiration to and participant in the art of nursing. humanistic nursing is also clinical art. it is creative, existential, dialogical, and seeking a greater whole.
tt falls under the art of nursing, it will never cure cancer and or any disease. it has shown it provides emotional support for many patients.
Nursing is an art and science. While one method appeals to a certain population and not another, so is the art of nursing.
I agree with you. Nursing is an art AND a science. And, as you suggest, the 'art' of nursing is highly individualistic and depends on the skill and technique of the practitioner. And what may appeal to some may not to others.
That being said, nursing's core knowledge should be core, not a buffet.
Since the 'art' of nursing just cannot be standardized across the board, why even try. I trust our individual practioners to bring their own spirituality and 'art' to the table.
What's left? Science. Nursing's core knowledge should be about the science of nursing.
That 'core', combined with the individual's art, is what makes nursing special. I WANT a core of science to fall back on. I DON'T WANT nursing's Ivory tower to decide for ME what is art, and what is scriggles on canvas. I have no doubt our opinions would differ.
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.
comments?
Have you read any books on Quantum physics lately? Modern medicine in still based in Newtonian physics and not even in Einsteinian physics, which is also way in the past. This is not about religion or some airy-fairy idea of "vapors" and "ghosts". Its about magnetic fields and sub-atomic particles. Even someone of limited spiritual beliefs can surely grasp this concept from a "science" standpoint with some education.
Have you read any books on Quantum physics lately? Modern medicine in still based in Newtonian physics and not even in Einsteinian physics, which is also way in the past. This is not about religion or some airy-fairy idea of "vapors" and "ghosts". Its about magnetic fields and sub-atomic particles. Even someone of limited spiritual beliefs can surely grasp this concept from a "science" standpoint with some education.
it's about what can be proven and what is reasonably inferred from the evidence. to say that since quantum physics is about magnetic fields and sub-atomic particles it proves the validity of tt makes literally as much sense as stuffing your mouth with toilet paper and mumbling incoherently. there is no unbroken chain of logic connecting the two. the reasoning (or lack of it) is as absolutely as airy-fairy as vapors and ghosts. this is the worst form of pseudo-science.
how is this for proof? quantum physics is about magnetic fields and subatomic particles... therefore, i can levitate! that statement has as much validity as tt. does believing in subatomic particles and magnetic forces allow me levitate? it would be nice to levitate. i'd sure like to have this ability. think of the ladies i could impress! :).
calling tt anything other than faith healing is a misnomer. it is certainly not supported by reason or science.
as i've said, i don't discount placebo effect. but since we don't give sugar pills as nurses, i don't think we should engage in offering tt (as nurses).
if you want to present yourself as a faith healer, then that's another matter altogether. happy tt'ing!
We definitely have a responsibility to at least investigate any mode of treatment that might benefit our patients and I think that's especially true with non-surgical, non-pharmacologic treatments.
The problem though - most of the public is still reassured by research and scientific findings, so if we're going to be taken seriously as a profession, we have to pursue evidence-based practice. Many alternative therapies have not been studied under research conditions and we should encourage that so that we can offer (or not offer) those therapies with confidence.
Therapeutic touch is really in an unusual position though. TT has been studied and no one's been able to prove any benefit. On top of that, the supposedly scientific principles underlying it ("it's based on Einstein's theories") simply do not make sense.
Well, its not Einstein's theory, its Quantam physics. Maybe a book on Quantam physics would help you understand it better. I'm very afraid for nursing. Does anyone actually care about the patient anymore? Science proves exactly what it wants to prove. Anyone hear of Larry Dossey? How about the peer-reviewed medical journal "Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine"?
Well, its not Einstein's theory, its Quantam physics. Maybe a book on Quantam physics would help you understand it better. I'm very afraid for nursing. Does anyone actually care about the patient anymore? Science proves exactly what it wants to prove. Anyone hear of Larry Dossey? How about the peer-reviewed medical journal "Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine"?
dropping "quantum physics" as a buzzword proves *nothing*.
what in the world does this issue have to do with caring about patients? i care enough about my patients to provide the best care that is supported by real world evidence of patient outcomes. exactly the same care i would give to my family. there is no need to "fear for nursing" if we base our practices on evidence. rather, it's basing practices on psuedo-science that threaten the profession and the health of our patients.
you can buy into all the psuedo-science you want, but i can't think of one important advance in healthcare that wasn't based on properly applied scientific method. the idea that science has a mind of its own and an evil agenda to destroy the profession is paranoid thinking.
Quantum physics EXPLAINS TT. Read what these physicists, who are experts in their fields say. You are going to be waiting until you act.
hmm... so the fact that atoms are composed of subatomic particles proves i can heal by waving my hands over someone? again, that's the "logic" employed by those seeking to lend scientific validity to tt. they simply drop the magic buzzword "QUANTUM PHYSICS". there is absolutely no explanation of anything connecting the two in a coherent manner. it is nonsense and it is no explanation at all. this is a hallmark of pseudoscience. it points to a sliver of accepted science, and then takes off on a nonsensical tangent to "prove" something as preposterous as tt. NONSENSE!
Let me break it down for you. Let's say you're a physician and you walk into the patients room in blue jeans and a t-shirt and tell them they need an antibiotic for their infection. In comparison, walk into the room with a suit and tie, and white jacket with stethoscope around your neck, followed by 10 residents, interns, medical students, etc. and tell the patient that you would like to prescribe an antibiotic that "will kill your infection very rapidly." Now, do you understand?
let me break it down for you. antibiotic therapy can be evaluated using cultures and counts. there is an objective standard. to suggest that it really depends on how a physician is dressed is simply nonsense.
does this mean that western medicine has every answer, and that every intervention is successful and that every study is properly applied? of course not! we know the evidence points strongly to some things. if my daughter had a ruptured appendix, i'd want her to have surgery, even though some people die in surgery. it is about treatments that have the best outcomes, which can be evaluated with a coherent standard by using real world evidence gathered according to scientific method.
the reason we know handwashing is effective is because of the scientific method, evaluating real world evidence. this method can be applied even in the absence of a complete understanding of the mechanism. here i would point to nightinggale's crimean war statistics. even though she didn't know about bacteria and the true mechanism behind her techniques, it is very clear from the statistics that her interventions where incredibly effective. because of science, we now know why her techniques produced the results they did. we know bacteria exist and we know about their role in disease. and we know because of science, not in spite of it.
which is where i differ with tt. nothing is clear here. it appears no more effective than any other placebo. even if i didn't understand it, but it was clearly effective in a way that went beyond mere anecdote and placebo, i'd be only too happy to support it as a nursing intervention. without that, i don't see that it has a place in this profession, other than study as an anecdote.
what is at stake? nothing less than our credibility as a profession.
I have read research, and seen controlled experiements that prove that therapeutic touch is not and effective form of therapy. I do not know why and industry (nursing) who is so research oriented continues to endorse this modality.
zenman
1 Article; 2,806 Posts
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."Einstein
Quantum physics EXPLAINS TT. Read what these physicists, who are experts in their fields say. You are going to be waiting until you act.
You might also read a book called Inner Bridges: A Guide to Energy Movement and Structure. In this book, an actual physician, Fritz Smith, will explain how western medicine actually proves eastern thought.
Let me break it down for you. Let's say you're a physician and you walk into the patients room in blue jeans and a t-shirt and tell them they need an antibiotic for their infection. In comparison, walk into the room with a suit and tie, and white jacket with stethoscope around your neck, followed by 10 residents, interns, medical students, etc. and tell the patient that you would like to prescribe an antibiotic that "will kill your infection very rapidly." Now, do you understand? And remember that placebos, even placebo surgery, are sometimes more effective than the real thing. Please remember that if nothing else. I have studied advanced pharm, but I also study humans.
Actually it proves a lot. Hugging your wife and kids is an anecdotal experience but it proves something. Call it a clinical field trial if you want. I wasn't trying to prove anything, except to show nurses that it's nice to have more tools in their toolkit.
"The body is not concerned with truth as an abstract concept, only with truth as an experience." Serge Kahili King, PhD. This describes the moment the patient and I had. It also explains the meeting a nun and I had in a Nepal airport. Our eyes meet when she walked in and as I was leaving, I had an irresistible urge to go over to her. We shook hands, she said something in another language, and we both burst out laughing. Double-blind that, LOL!
I for one do have an open mind and believe in evidence based practice. However, as I've said before, if even double-blind studies have their limitations, why would one push for absolute belief in them?
I think you are the only one that is talking about reliability. Sometimes it works, sometimes surgery works, sometimes drugs work!
Then, if you have actually looked at the studies, some of which show the efficacy of TT, then what threshold are you using? Which do you use for say, an antibiotic study? Are you saying that you have different thresholds: that's not very scientific!
It's been addressed before. Do you really think JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine is going to promote this? I really think you can reason this out. It took a long time before hand washing was universally accepted, didn't it.
Joanna Ward, MD "Western medicine is astonishingly arrogant in its dismissal of these age-old traditions (alternative medicine). Although there is an increasing interest in these methods of healing by family doctors, they are still rejected outright by most hospital practitioners in the united Kingdom-perhaps because they are felt to challenge the whole scientific basis upon which our medicine stands and because they deal with things which cannot be measured by our methods."
O.T. Bonnett, M.D., in talking about his peers, stated that, "Unfortunately, like most physicians, they were trapped into rigid patterns of thought, belief, and action bought on through years of the intellectual brainwashing that has passed for medical education. Actually, doctors are poorly educated! Their education consists of training along a very narrow path, and they wear huge intellectual blinders as they go. Anything appearing in their intellectual peripheral vision is suspect, frightening, and likely to be ignored."
More from Dr. Bonnett..."The doctors finally graduate and finish training but with little real skill in applying it in life situations, for they have been trained not to get close to or familiar with their patients. Highly trained as they may be, they are virtually isolated from feelings, the humanity of their patients, and the world in general. Many new doctors are, therefore, both frightened and defensive."
And more..."Physicians have a vested interest in rejecting new ideas. Part of the reason for this is that most doctors have little training in deductive thinking. What serves as thought is mostly recalling, with accuracy, what has been previously memorized."
And finally..."One of the most compelling reasons physicians reject new ideas is fear of change and the need to protect their block of medical information, which serves as their clearest bridge to others and the world."
People who have an emotional need to be a healer usually fail in their quest unless someone gets them on the right path. Healers don't heal, people do, healers facilitate the process.
Has someone been arguing that TT should be core nursing knowledge? I dont think so. If this modality was created by nurses then why not have it as an elective and people who want it can take it, the others can do something else. I've said this before
Are you saying that TT does not exist? You demanded research studies. They are out there so TT must exist and must be of some benefit.
You say that you are waiting for that explanation of quantum physics which proves that TT is a science. You don't have to wait as TT has been explained.
Dr. Rappenecker says, "As a young physician in the 80s, I turned to shiatsu because I constantly had the inkling that something was not quite right in the way classic western medicine was being practiced. It was as if the connection to the way life really is, was completely missing...it was missing a connection to the life of the patients in the hospital and practice. It also lacked every trace of what life meant to me. I wanted to know what this missing element was and to understand what truly defines health in relation to illness and that also must be a kind of definition of life itself."
And a few snippets from the inventor of the defibrillator, Dr. Bernard Lowen:
"Although physicians are increasingly able to cure disease and prolong life, the American public is suspicious, distrustful of, even antagonistic to, the profession. Doctors, uneasy, astonished, resentful, and angry, universally acknowledge a crisis in health care."
"In my view, the basic reason is that medicine has lost its way, if not its soul."
"The rot will continue until doctors reconnect with their tradition as healers."