Pat Glickman writes the following:

To All: I think that theory's behind Therapeutic Touch do warrant discussion and investigation. As nurses, we pledge to do no harm and certainly the "manipulation" of energy fields can not harm an individual. But we are patient advocates and as such, we have a duty to do what is in the best interest of the patient. What would a good nurses response be if a physician were to do a procedure that was based on an untested theory? What would your response be if a physician prescribed a medication that had no measureable effect on the patients state of health? I think that the profession of nursing would be best be served if the TT practitioners separated themselves from nursing until such time that their abilities can be defined and their outcomes proved measureable (just like our nursing care-plans that we have been taught and have used since nursing school). At this point in time, TT practitioners will have no more credibility than the "faith healers",that Andy Kaufmann saw as he was dying from cancer, until such time as they subject their teaching and methods to the eye of science.

Pat responds to some Rodgerians:

. I feel that as a nurse I should be able to challange those in my profession against those who would promote any non- substantiated therapy or treatment regime, and wrap themselves under the blanket of Nursing.

Many have taken issue with my brothers' test and feel that he is coming at the issue from the wrong perspective. From what I read, there are those who believe that the researcher must believe in his theory in order to prove that their hypothesis is true. My brother and I are skeptical as to the validity of TT as it is practiced, so his test is invalid? Why have the Rodgerians not taken there theory to the next logical level and begin testing? Why is my brothers' test invalid?

Your wife sound like she is an educated and accomplished woman and nurse. Yours sounds like a solid relationship with your wife and you have every right to be proud of your wife's achievements. As one in the profession I know how difficult our profession can be.

I also know that nursing has long struggled to define what a nurse does. We know we perform intricate tasks, evaluate complicated information and make difficult care choices for our patients. But a lay person would say "like what?" and we would be at a loss to explain how we touch our patients lives. To explain what we do to a Doctor, their reply would be "but I wrote the order." The 'thing' that I think best explains what we do is "to care for the human spirit during its' time of physical crisis." Even that is hard to define but most nurses would know what I mean.

I have no problem with Rogerian or Watsonian theorys' but am suspect of them when there is a reluctance to test put those theorys' to the test . I have a problem when people take money from others in exchange for a treatment that offers no hard proof of effectiveness (anecdotal does not count) and is legitimized by some factions of nursing such as AACN and AORN.

Perhaps, Sir, your wife would be willing to take up the challange for all Rogerians and come to Florida in June and begin the ground work for the testing of Rogerian theories.("The Needs of the Many out weigh the Needs of the Few"..."Or the One" Mr. Spock and Adm. Kirk-The Wrath of Kahn. I am aware of your fondness of movie comments, sir.)

As to my friend in Brazil, Teldane or Seldane was the product of years of research and testing by its' pharmaceutical company prior to it being appro ved by the FDA. Any nurse could not be held responsible for any deleterious effects once given under these guidelines. Who knew a grapefruit could cause so much trouble? And Prozak is still widely in use in the world, and the allegations against it have never been substantiated.

Sincerely,

Patrick Glickman RN BSN Go

Back to Therapeutic Touch page