does therapeutic touch belong in grad programs?

[traumahawk99]

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?

[traumahawk99]

it was more than one faculty member. i'd have to say that among all the faculty, there was one dissenting voice. obviously, it depends on the school.

at this institution, TT is a holy grail, and any student who scoffs at it is in for a difficult time.

[romie]

I found an old book about therapuetic touch at a Salvation Army store, bought it and tried to read it. I couldn't read more than a few pages, I found the concept to be excruiating. However, I think it is important to not jump to any conclusions. Remeber that at one point people thought that handwashing was pointless and the idea that infections were caused by microscopic organisms to be a load of baloney. I am still waiting for a solid foundation of research and a real body of knowledge for therapuetic touch to be considered a viable "therapy". We have to be careful how we throw the word "therapy" around. You can read my previous posts about music therapy to get the idea.

[traumahawk99]

I found an old book about therapuetic touch at a Salvation Army store, bought it and tried to read it. I couldn't read more than a few pages, I found the concept to be excruiating. However, I think it is important to not jump to any conclusions. Remeber that at one point people thought that handwashing was pointless and the idea that infections were caused by microscopic organisms to be a load of baloney. I am still waiting for a solid foundation of research and a real body of knowledge for therapuetic touch to be considered a viable "therapy". We have to be careful how we throw the word "therapy" around. You can read my previous posts about music therapy to get the idea.

i thnk the evidence has clearly debunked the validity of this therapy. this cannot be compared to microorganisms, since the evidence of their role in disease is abundantly apparent.

not jumping to conclusions would mean not asserting that something with a placebo effect worked via some other mechanism.

i don't buy therapuetic touch any more than i buy other paranormal phenomena, from flying saucers to telepathy. to mix it with nursing only belittles the profession.

[zenman]

Oh, boy a bunch of newbies who need enlightenment! Where do I start?

The JAMA study (April 1, 1998) is not one you should quote as your reference.

1. It was conducted by a "professional scientist," an 11 yr old girl whose RN mother was a member of the Questionable Nurse Practices Task Force, National Council Against Health Fraud, and the co-founder of Quackwatch which is also run by a de-licensed psychiatrist who has very limited experience and who has been made a laughing stock of the by the courts.

2. JAMA even altered their own peer review process to publish this article. The editor of JAMA was fired for this decision as well as other poor decisions.

3. Other skeptic organizations even jumped on JAMA, telling them that if you wanted to debunk someone, as least do it correctly.

4. Perhaps the most serious flaw was that TT as described by its founder was not even being tested!

Now, if you want to talk about empirical study and evidence-based medicine, let's consider the following:

1. "Modern" medicine is way behind (about a 100 years) the current sciences. Some of the diagnostic machines now used in the hospital work on principals that modern medicine does not believe in!

2. Double blind studies are of limited use as they can not measure consciousness. If you do not understand this I can explain further.

3. Customers are walking away and seeking alternative medicine because modern medicine is not working to their satisfaction.

4. Western medicine is good for acute illness and trauma but is failing miserably with chronic diseases.

5. Any reductionist point of view is severely lacking and I can't see why people spend so many years and dollars studying it! Put a pebble in your left shoe and by the end of the day your right neck might be killing you. Now, after some scientist points out that the single cause of your problem is the pebble, you will take it out only to discover that your neck pain does not go away.

If you have trouble with Reiki, TT and other energy based medicine, study Quantum physics and you will see that many of the energy based practices, shamanism, etc. can be explained.

And finally, "placebo" is now known as "psychoneuroimmunology."

[sirI, MSN, APRN, NP]

oh, boy a bunch of newbies who need enlightenment! where do i start?

the jama study (april 1, 1998) is not one you should quote as your reference.

1. it was conducted by a "professional scientist," an 11 yr old girl whose rn mother was a member of the questionable nurse practices task force, national council against health fraud, and the co-founder of quackwatch which is also run by a de-licensed psychiatrist who has very limited experience and who has been made a laughing stock of the by the courts.

2. jama even altered their own peer review process to publish this article. the editor of jama was fired for this decision as well as other poor decisions.

3. other skeptic organizations even jumped on jama, telling them that if you wanted to debunk someone, as least do it correctly.

4. perhaps the most serious flaw was that tt as described by its founder was not even being tested!

now, if you want to talk about empirical study and evidence-based medicine, let's consider the following:

1. "modern" medicine is way behind (about a 100 years) the current sciences. some of the diagnostic machines now used in the hospital work on principals that modern medicine does not believe in!

2. double blind studies are of limited use as they can not measure consciousness. if you do not understand this i can explain further.

3. customers are walking away and seeking alternative medicine because modern medicine is not working to their satisfaction.

4. western medicine is good for acute illness and trauma but is failing miserably with chronic diseases.

5. any reductionist point of view is severely lacking and i can't see why people spend so many years and dollars studying it! put a pebble in your left shoe and by the end of the day your right neck might be killing you. now, after some scientist points out that the single cause of your problem is the pebble, you will take it out only to discover that your neck pain does not go away.

if you have trouble with reiki, tt and other energy based medicine, study quantum physics and you will see that many of the energy based practices, shamanism, etc. can be explained.

and finally, "placebo" is now known as "psychoneuroimmunology."

as a practitioner of tt, i could not have said this better myself, randy.

thank you for your input. it is always welcome.:)

[traumahawk99]

heh. as i described, TT is well embedded in sectors of the nursing profession.

i won't deny it can have a placebo effect, and if someone wants it and finds it gives them relief, i have no problem with it. but let's just call it what it is (or at least i will). if someone believes in a particular exercise or technique, it tends to "work." i think that's well established.

i just don't want to refer to it as a valid therapy from the standpoint that the theories are plausable or even make sense. i credit science and reason with virtually all the progress mankind has made since the caveman days, and the evidence i've seen gives no credence to this theory. this is a takeoff into mysticism.

i'd lump it right up there with finding water with a y-shaped branch or any other paranormal phenomena.

returning to the thread's original question, does this belong in graduate level programs?

[sirI, MSN, APRN, NP]

returning to the thread's original question, does this belong in graduate level programs?

I don't see why not, traumahawk99 ~ in the graduate or the post masters program. If one's interests lie with this particular subject matter, one will find a program whether post-grad or post masters. Some undergrad programs incorporate this as well.

[indigo girl]

Traumahawk99, you sound so uncomfortable about finding TT in your program, and worse still, being surrounded by so many that believe in it. It must be very hard for you to be there. It's very difficult to be one of the few who has a different belief system. If this program does not align with your Truth, why not switch to one that is more mainstream. Clearly, you do not seem happy with the beliefs that are accepted in such a place. You can not change what is happening around you. Why be miserable? There are many other programs where this is not an issue. It makes more sense to be in a place where you would not be confronted with practices that do not resonate for you. Other posters to this thread seem to be in the type of programs where it is not an issue. Schooling is challenging enough without having affronts to your belief system. Truly, it seems such a waste for you to be in this space.

Wishing you a better outcome.

[traumahawk99]

i went through excelsior college, where there is no mention of TT. i'm just here discussing. i've stated my views, and obviously others disagree. that is what discussion is for :).

i'm all for science and evidence based practices that improve patient outcomes. i wouldn't see TT in that light.

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

In response to the original question, maybe discussion of this phenomenon but not actually teaching of how to do it.

One of the things I found lacking in my nursing education was the political atmosphere, the controversies, the history of nursing.

I myself agree with the op about the validity of TT.

steph

[llg, PhD, RN]

Traumahawk99, you sound so uncomfortable about finding TT in your program, and worse still, being surrounded by so many that believe in it. It must be very hard for you to be there. It's very difficult to be one of the few who has a different belief system. If this program does not align with your Truth, why not switch to one that is more mainstream. ....

Good point. The higher up the academic ladder you go, the more important it is to take the faculty's academic interests into consideration as you choose a school. At the graduate level, people focus more on their area of specialization than at the undergraduate level. Graduate work is about exploring and becoming an expert in one's chosen focus area -- not about familiarizing yourself with the field in a broad, general way.

In fact, many (most?) PhD programs will not accept a student unless that student's interests are at least a reasonable match for the interests of the faculty. There needs to be a compatability of interests for the student and faculty to work together at that level.

Anybody in the process of choosing a graduate should take that into consideration before you make a mistake and find yourself enrolled in a program that doesn't meet your needs -- and which might frustrate you terribly.

llg

[indigo girl]

i went through excelsior college, where there is no mention of TT. i'm just here discussing. i've stated my views, and obviously others disagree. that is what discussion is for :).

i'm all for science and evidence based practices that improve patient outcomes. i wouldn't see TT in that light.

Oh, I see, thank you for clarifying. TT is not in your program. You feel it has no place in any grad program, and are concerned about the gullible nursing students being exposed to this by believing faculty members. And, you liken it to withcraft. I think I understand where you are coming from now. I thought you were being forced into exposure to this practice, but you just wanted to state your reaction to and beliefs about it. I thought at first you just needed community support for your feelings, but you say you want discussion. Got it.