Crystal Healing

Discussion in 'Health and Fitness' started by cheesypeas, Apr 19, 2007.

  1. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter


    How much time have you spent reading nursing journals on the subject? How much time attending lectures? Talking to medical professionals? Reading textbooks on the subject?

    Oh, that's right. None.

    I am stating quite clearly that contradicting patient's desires for CAMs and even the act of trying to talk them out of it has a detrimental and recordable affect on the outcome of the patient. How much clearer do I have to state it? The prevention of use and/or attempt to "educate" a patient out of a CAM is contraindicated because of the negative effect on the patient. Further, the therapeutic effect is not, actually, a placebo effect. Placebo effect is defined as the act of thinking that something (say CAM or a sugar pill) will have a specific outcome will actually bring about that outcome. The therapeutic benefit of CAMs often lies in the reduction of stress (and the subsequent positive outcomes of a reduction in cortisol) as well as an increased sensitivity to pain medication (fewer meds to produce the same result). Which isn't at all the placebo effect.

    Basically, you can prattle on as much as you like but fortunately nursing in the US is based on evidence based outcomes, which means that we actually follow the scientific method. The prevention of the use of CAMs leads to recorded lengthening of hospital stays, the increased need for pain medication (and all the possible side effects that goes along with them), and slower healing.
  2. cheesypeas

    cheesypeas Moved on

    I am sure that if patients have a positive frame of mind and a strong will to recover, their outcome is better. Therefore, as Wry has said previously (much better than I could have put it) whatever someone personally believes will aid their recovery should be encouraged/made available wherever possible.

    The human body has great capacity for healing, and everything that can be done to encourage the patient to actively participate in their treatment programme can only be a positive thing.
  3. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    I'm all for using treatments that are proven to be effective in well controlled studies. That's not an issue. The issue is promoting non-proven therapies or therapies that have consistently failed clinical tests. Again I'm not talking about prohibiting them I'm just saying that a hospital should not be promoting treatments that have no clinical evidence of efficacy.

    I'm confused. Are you suggesting that in modern medicine any treatment that has not been totally disproven even where no possible mechanism exists for it to work has to be considered potentially valid? Also, if your patients trust is important shouldn't that extend to being honest with them about the evidence for treatments? Would you lie about the efficacy of a drug in order to make the patient feel happier or do you have a duty to inform them honestly?

    It really seems to me that there is a case of double standards in the way people deal with so-called 'Western' medicine and 'Alternative' medicine when arguing for them being 'integrated'. What integration seems to involve is simply letting alternative medicine completely by-pass the required evidential method demanded of modern medicine and then arguing for it to be considered a valid treatment. I honestly don't believe wry that most doctors or nurses would lie about the efficacy of treatments or be allowed to advocate treatments that have absolutely no potential mechanism by which they could work. Yet when it is an alternative treatment seemingly you are suggesting such things are irrelevant if the patient thinks it helps. Does that mean you also think doctors should be allowed to prescribe fake medicine?

    I would also add once again that it is simply not true that all medical professionals are of the same opinion as you on this issue.

    Following the scientific method by advocating treatments without scientific evidence. That seems like a bit of a paradox. I'd also very much like links to the studies that have proven CAM's aid healing time as I'm very interested in this kind of topic and have never come across studies which prove the kind of conclusions you are suggesting are common knowledge in the medical proffesion. I'd also like to point out once again that not promoting CAM's that don't have any clinical evidence for efficacy is not the same as preventing or prohibiting people from using them. It's simply not giving the veneer of legitimacy to something that has no evidence of efficacy.
  4. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Can you give me a source?

    How is this different. Believing X will work will likely have positive psychological effects such as lowing stress, pain, etc. That all part of the placebo effect.

    Which contradicts the use of treatments which are not evidence-based. Clearly you see this?
    How can you say you're following evidence and then condone/advocate treatments which lack evidence?

    Source please?
  5. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    I really don't think that is the accepted definition of the placebo effect.

    "A placebo effect or placebo response is a therapeutic and healing effect of an inert medicine or ineffective therapy,[1] or more generally is the psychosocial aspect of every medical treatment.[2]"

    There's nothing stating that the only effect considered a 'placebo effect' must be the 'specific outcome' that the medicine is intended for. A placebo treatment for cancer could reduce someones stress for instance without curing the cancer and it would still be due to the 'placebo effect'.
  6. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Wow, color me confused but I thought that Wry just said it does have clinical evidence of efficacy.
  7. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Nope clinical evidence of efficacy would mean passing clinical trials and proving that any recorded effect was more than just a placebo effect. As I say it's distinctly possible that people would feel better after carrot therapy (if you blindfolded them and told them it was a crystal for instance) but that wouldn't mean that carrot therapy was clinically proven. All it would show is that people claim a positive effect for a placebo. For it be clinically proven it would need something like the following. In a clinical trial where there were 5 groups each receiving the same treatment and kept under the same conditions you blindfold each group and then proceed to wave a crystal, a carrot, a pen, a shoe and nothing over the person. All the while talking to all groups about the carrot radiating biogenetic energy fields. Now at the end of the trial if the carrot group was doing better than all other groups by a significant margin then it would be worth looking into if not then carrot therapy is nothing more than a placebo. The reason something is 'alternative' is because it has not passed any trials like these. Placebo's can of course help but it's much better to have the placebo effect and an actual proven effect working at the same time.

    I think it's also worth mentioning that additional theraupeutic treatments aid recovery time I don't doubt but again what I am questioning is whether a hospital should promote or recommend a treatment that has no evidence for efficacy (or indeed has failed clinical trials) and no possible mechanism by which it could work. In my view a hospital has a duty to promote medicine that has evidence for efficacy not medicine that has a large list of anecdotal claims of efficacy.

    My point could be illustrated by imagining a study which looked at groups of patients who received A) extra therapy that has been proven to be clinically effective as well as the normal treatment, B) extra alternative therapies that have not been proven effective as well as the normal treatment and c) no extra therapy just the normal treatment. I am suggesting that group A is the best option, all the treatments would be based on evidence and I also strongly suspect that they would have the most effect (given that they have been proven to have an effect beyond the placebo). Group B I suspect would do better than group C because there is more attention being paid to them however a hospital advocating this method to me means that anecdotal evidence trumps clinical evidence (afterall they would be promoting something which the scientific evidence shows has no effect greater than the placebo under controlled conditions). So to my mind advocating the treatment of Group A is entirely consistent with modern, evidence based medicine whereas advocating Group B's treatment would not be... it would be better than offering no therapeutic treatments but then it's not like there are no clinically proven therapies so I really don't see why it should be a case of chosing alternative medicine or nothing. Again though I really feel it is important to stress I'm not talking about banning patients from alternative treatments or therapies I am just saying that they shouldn't be part of modern medicine unless they have clinical evidence of efficacy. Anecdotal evidence just doesn't cut it if your really following 'evidence-based' medicine.

    EDIT: I would like to see the papers wry claim have proven CAM to be beneficial though. Specificaly I am interested in whether they included groups that received proven therapeutic treatments and sham versions of therapies or whether they just had a control group that got less attention.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2008
  8. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Aiki to make it a bit clearer in case there is still confusion as to why I don't think what wry is discussing makes alternative methods clinically proven:

    Imagine I took the time to go round hospitals and offered my carrot therapy to willing individuals. Now we can also assume I spend some time with them during which as well as administering the cure I also extol the wonderful benefits of carrot therapy and provide lots of anecdotal stories of people having miraculous cures. I also during my visits undoubtedly ask about their condition... their aches and pains and how the treatment is working and offer them reassurance that carrot therapy can cure any problems. Now if someone was to do a study examining all the patients in a specific ward I visited and found that the patients I visited had significantly shortened recovery times wry seems to be suggesting that would make something 'clinically proven'. I'm saying it definitely would not. All it would clinically prove is that patients who receive more attention and reassurance get better quickly the carrot therapy is incidental. If we really weren't sure however and I was adamant that it was the carrot that was inducing the healing then we could do the clinical trial I outlined above and I think we all know that the carrot would in all likelihood fare as well as the pen, the shoe and most tellingly no item at all. If it did turn out that all the other things produced little to no effect and the carrot 'treated' individuals healed significantly quicker well then carrots would have the beginnings of what is real clinical evidence.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2008
  9. Topher

    Topher allo!

    I didn't get the impression that she way saying it was clinically proven. I thought she was just saying (certainly implying) that evidence is irrelevant to whether we use alternative medicines and that anecdotal subjective feedback was enough justification for allowing non-proven treatments. I think that is more concerning... it's one thing to try and argue that they are clinically proven, it's another thing altogether to suggest that clinical evidence is not even required for their provision.

    She's basically justifying alternative treatments on the placebo effect alone.

    She did claim that there is evidence for recovery times but of course this wouldn't be evidence for the physiological effect of the treatment, which is what clinical trials try to establish.
  10. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    No, I am not trying to suggest efficacy- which means that the drug or therapy does what it is intended to do. Just saying that the statistical data implies that withholding access harms the patients.

    The citations are hid within my nursing textbooks, nursing journals and some medical journals. Sorry I don't have time to hand feed you, but I just finished the state boards and, frankly, if I look at anything nursing orientated this weekend I might just cause my head to pop. So I am off this weekend to float the river with a few friends and a lot of beer.

    Evidence based practice is different then efficacy trials, by the way. The main concern with EBP is a scientific study in how methodology effects outcome. Therefore, we do not clean central lines in concentric circles anymore because there is no evidence that the outcome is effected and we do leave eschar open to the air in unstageable pressure ulcers because to try to soak and remove it leads to longer healing times and higher risk for systemic infection.

    It is a type of study, but it is not a clinical trial. Which is where I think you are getting things wrong in your head, Topher.
  11. Topher

    Topher allo!

    What exactly are you saying is a type of study... 'evidence based practice'? How so? What procedures ensure objective conclusions? Based on your explanations of this it sounds like subjective based conclusions... where if many people say X helps then it's concluded that X is valid, however while it may have helpful benefits, it is not evidence that the treatment is doing what it is claimed to do and on that basis alone should not be endorsed or proscribed by professionals. (And please don't confuse that as stopping anyone from using such treatments).

    I'll ask again my question from a previous post: at what point must we insist the treatments are evidence-based? If subjective opinions are the criteria of the use of treatment, why even bother with evidence at all? If you argue that some treatments/medicines require solid clinical evidence while alternative treatments do not then how do you justify the double standard?

    You say that the "main concern with EBP is a scientific study in how methodology effects outcome" yet nowhere must this involve the promotion or application of treatments which are not proven or have fail trials. You can utilise a methodology that does not harm a patient that does not involve promoting or engaging in unscientific treatments. For example, given an unproven treatment that has a positive effect (placebo) and a proven treatment that has a positive effect (physiological + placebo) there would clearly been no need for the unproven one.

    As for the citation... please... Don't make claims and then when asked for a source accuse the person of having to spoon feed them! :rolleyes:
  12. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    Sorry that came off testy- like I said, I just finished the board exam yesterday and was a bit off.

    Look up evidence based practice- I am afraid I don't have a huge amount of time this morning.
  13. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Looking up evidence based medicine and evidence based practice which I have to say I've already looked into previously... wikipedia provides a decent summary and there you find the following kinds of statements:

    And before the whole wikipedia is not a reliable source... these particular articles are seemingly well sourced and from my own experience of researching into evidence based medicine I don't find any major issues with the summary.
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2008
  14. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    I think you're willfully missing Wyr's point for the purpose of making an argument where there is none. And that's not cool.

    The hospital staff's goal is to make people better. A particular use of crystals has proven to make people better in clinical trials. That particular use of carrots has proven to make people better in (hypothetical, pretend) clinical trials. Therefore, we do it. If A then B. A. Therefore B.

    The whats and whys and hows of how that particular use of a crystal or carrot makes someone better is NOT RELEVANT to the GOAL of the nurse walking the hospital floors.

    Try it in a different way: After we show -- and apparently it has been satisfactorily shown -- that when a sick patient uses a crystal or carrot in a certain way he tends to get better, then compassionate people let him use that crystal or carrot. Are you a compassionate person, CKava?
  15. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    I honestly don't think I'm missing wry's point and in fact there is a clear disagreement in our perspectives which I'm not inventing. Wry has in previous discussions for instance contended that shamanic healers should be associated with hospitals whereas I would strongly disagree. We have a difference of opinion on these kind of issues and it is not an invented one but nor does it have to be seen as petty bickering. I genuinely disagree and I genuinely have strong reasons for my position. I think wry does too and hence there is a debate. I don't see this as being a bad thing though. Debate makes me research, reasses my opinions and think through my positions thoroughly... to me debate is actually a positive thing.

    As for wry's point.

    She is saying:

    1. That it is counter productive to prevent a patient from receiving treatment that makes them feel better even if said treatment is working via the placebo effect.
    2. There are studies/a study (awaiting info when wry has time) that show that receiving alternative therapies aids recovery times.
    3. That evidence based practice means following a practice based on treatments shown to be the most effective at producing desired outcomes.
    4. That clinical trials are not the only form of evidence available and that clinical experience needs to be considered.

    As for the responses to these points:

    1. It has been repeated numerous times now that no-one is advocating preventing people from receiving alternative treatments. All that is being advocated is that hospitals should not promote 'alternative treatments' but treatments that have scientific evidence for efficacy. In which case the individual concerned would be receiving benefits from the treatment + benefits from the placebo effect rather than just benefits from the placebo effect.

    2. Wry hasn't provided any information on these studies yet so theres nothing much to discuss on this point (though I can understand why if she just had tests!). The main things I would be interested in seeing the methodology of such studies, the controls used and how far their conclusions are accepted in the wider medical community. I am aware of a number of

    3. I agree with this but as the quotes on the last page show and in fact all the various 'evidence based practice' websites and papers I've now looked at place clinical trials at the top of the hierarchy of evidence and anecdotal or expert opinion at the bottom. Alternative therapies fail or don't take clinical trials hence why they are 'alternative'. I've stated several times now where an 'alternative' treatment has clinical evidence for efficacy I would consider it perfectly valid to be promoted at a hospital.

    4. As per 3 this is correct. However, again in every single discussion I can see about evidence based medicine clinical trial evidence is at the top. There are also repeated discussions about the need to eliminate treatments that are operating purely on the placebo effect. Most evidence based medicine advocacy groups I can see do not agree with wry's point that alternative treatments without scientific evidence are to be considered perfectly valid treatments if people believe them to be.

    I think you should have added (hypothetical, pretend) after the claim that a particular use of crystals have been proven to make people better in clinical trials. What clinical trial are you referring to? I am not aware of any where such a thing has been proven and indeed if it was proven it would mean big problems for science as a whole.

    I also believe that in this case YOU are guilty of missing my point. You are correct that if we had strong evidence from clinical trials that carrots or crystals effectively helped people suffering from condition A by a mechanism other than the placebo effect then it would be right for a hospital to advocate using carrot or crsytal therapy to aid recovery.

    The problem is that neither carrots or crystals have passed clinical trials. If a treatment works only as well as the placebo effect it won't pass a clinical trial. Hence treatments like crystals that operate ONLY through the placebo effect cannot pass clinical trials.

    Hospitals do have a duty to make people better and as such they have a duty to use treatments that are proven to be effective not just to offer people placebo treatments.

    Crystals can't make people better. There is no evidence nor is there any possible mechanism by which a crystal could directly heal a person. The only possiblity is that a person is healed indirectly by the placebo effect. A placebo is something that has no theraupeutic effect. People should be allowed to use placebo treatments if they so desire but a hospital should not be promoting a placebo treatment. A hospital should be promoting treatments that work. If nurses only care about the outcomes then that is even more reason why they should advocate treatments that are known to be effective and not ones which have no evidence for efficacy.

    Also if crystals really did MAKE someone better then it would be important if not the nurse then at least for the doctor and modern medicine in general to know how it was occuring. For one if it was a real effect then just like all real medicines it must be doing something to the human body. If it has real effects then as with all medicines it would be important to know how those effects would interact with other medicines/treatments. If there was a new drug coming to market would you say it is unimportant that anyone knew how it worked or that had ever been proven effective in clinical trials? I doubt it.

    It hasn't been satisfactorily shown and to be honest I think your summary highlights the common problem of hyperbole that surrounds alternative medicine. Wry has not asserted things so strongly as you suggest. She has only suggested that some studies showed that patients receiving alternative therapies had shorter recovery times. That does not mean "when a sick patient uses a crystal... in a certain way he tends to get better" which suggests that there is evidence that crystals have been proven to heal and are the only treatment being received. From what wry has said I get the impression that she is discussing alternative treatments only in relation to being a complementary therapy that occasionally aids recovery time. That is very different from your summary.

    As for the forthcoming studies as I mentioned before I highly suspect that any benefits will likely have been due to increased attention and the placebo effect and possibly depending on the therapy involved real beneficial effects such as exercise or relaxation. The issue again here is that there are proven treatments that would provide the same benefits as well as being actually effective therapies. I like to think I am compassionate which is part of the reason I think people should be provided with the most effective treatments (with effectivenes being judged by high quality evidence of efficacy). Also, once again no-one is talking about preventing people from using whatever therapy they like... people are talking about what therapies it is appropriate for a hospital to promote.
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2008
  16. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Oh, well #183 led me astray.

    #183 again: "Basically, you can prattle on as much as you like but fortunately nursing in the US is based on evidence based outcomes, which means that we actually follow the scientific method. The prevention of the use of CAMs leads to recorded lengthening of hospital stays, the increased need for pain medication (and all the possible side effects that goes along with them), and slower healing." She's a nursing student. We can assume that she learned that in one of her nursing classes.

    And herein is the misunderstanding apparently. Nurse W has a patient in a hospital who wants those magic carrots. AikiMac and WryDolphin say let the patient in the hospital have his magic carrots for the reason of the quote above, post 183. CKava says (I think) "No no no no no no no no no no! Nurse W ought not ever ever ever give those carrots in a hospital, ever!"

    Am I correct?

    No, I agree that the docs should be very careful about mixing things that ought not be mixed.
  17. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Well this would be using and giving implicit validation to a treatment (magic carrots) that has no evidence for efficacy.... efficacy meaning it has passes clinical trials.

    The patient, if they so wish, can go to a alternative 'medicine' practitioner and get what ever they want, but when in the hospital, under the care of professionals, they should only receive treatments which have been demonstrated under clinical trials to be effective.

    If a doctor proscribes something this will be taken by the patient as a validation of the treatment (which is one of the reasons the doctor needs to ensure that their proscribing is based on clinical evidence). Also, if a patient asks about an alternative treatment and the doctor does not inform them of the efficacy of the treatment (providing they know of course) then this too will likely be taken as a silent validation. Even if the alternative treatment and it's application (in this case) is benign it is not without danger as in both cases this validation may causes them to turn to that alternative treatment (and maybe others) at a time when they really need to turn to evidence-based medicine. I think it is far better to inform them of the status of alternative treatments and the standards of evidence-based medicine before rather than later.
  18. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    Sorry- been trying to wade through some of the boxes from the move and most of the text books are there since I seem to have tossed out the journals (printed from CINAL (sp?) while still a student) in a fit of "ha, I no longer need this since I am not a student anymore!" zeal.

    I can give a moderate list of the main textbooks I used for researching the subject and writing the rationales and care plans involved in nursing in conjunction with CAMs, though two are still lost to the room full of boxes that I, perhaps over optimistically call my spare bedroom.

    Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Nursing Practice (2 Ed) by Karen Lee Fontaine
    Fundamentals of Nursing (can't remember the edition and still in a box some where)
    Medical Surgical Nursing (same as above)
    and any of the nursing care plan books

    They all have chapters dedicated to pain (which was the example I used) management illustrating how environment and care giver affect the effectiveness of pain medication. They also go through quite extensive detail on the effects of stress and environment on healing and recovery.

    Sorry its not more concise at the moment, but I am still moving in and, frankly, since passing boards I am so excited at the prospect of NOT studying for any tests that I am more inclined tonight to play the piano and work on setting up my art studio again after two years of not touching pastel to paper. The fact of the matter is, what I am talking about is so well documented that I don't have to pull out journals to support it- its in all the textbooks. Its a major part of what we learn as bachelor's prepared nurses because we are expected to have the type of critical thinking that allows us to not only advocate for our patients, but also be able to correct the doctor's mistakes, predict the condition of a patient and recognize changes in status. What I am talking about is basic to BSN and RN education and preparation. I will, at this point, trust what I have learned through hard work, research, and course work.

    Meant to add, when I find the other two text books I will be happy to try to add more then just listing their names.
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2008
  19. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    There are advocates for alternative medicine in nursing- especially in the US. There are bad trials in nursing. There are differences of opinion in nursing. There are differences in opinion between teachers in nursing. As such I don't doubt wry has learnt what she says I just would like to have a look at the studies themselves to see what they say because of the reasons I have previously listed:

    1. What controls where used- where there non-alternative therapies, sham-alternative therapies?
    2. How was effectiveness measured- was it by recovery time, where there follow ups, was it self reporting?
    3. Are the studies conclusive- where they small scale/large scale, repeated/non-repeated, preliminary, carried out by respected researchers/advocacy groups, published in peer reviewed scientific journals/journals?
    4. Where any of them actual clinical trials that proved the effectiveness of the treatment beyond a placebo?

    As Topher says the answer is the hospital should not promote such treatments since they have never been proven to work but if the patient wants to bring in an alternative medicine practitioner then as always the person should be free to do so.

    This means the hospital A) is not advocating a treatment that has no scientific evidence, B) is not advocating a treatment based on the placebo effect and C) is not providing an aura of legitimacy to something that has no scientific evidence.

    If you don't believe in 'evidence based medicine' then those 3 above wouldn't be much of a problem. Unfortunately I do believe that medicine should be based on what is proven to work not on what people say works.
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2008
  20. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    lol... well that's understandable. I meant to say congratulations by the way!!!

    If your argument was simply that there are widespread movements to encourage the 'integration' of alternative medicine and modern medicine and that there are an ever increasing variety (especially in the US) of courses that teach this approach then I wouldn't disagree and I also wouldn't find it a compelling argument. The fact that alternative medicine is pervasive in the medical industry is a well known fact- there are even national centers such as NCCAM. The issue that there is very little to no clinical evidence for most of the treatments is also a well known fact (amongst those who care about such things). That there are counter movements in medicine which advocate 'evidence based medicine' is also important. As you are presenting it, you are making it sound like the entire medical profession agrees with the conclusion that alternative treatments have been proven to be effective and that they therefore should be incorporated. This is simply not true. For one, despite the situation in America, most of the UK nursing courses at the minute remain devoid of alternative medicine classes.

    There was a book just came out a month or so ago by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst called 'Trick or Treatment' looking at the evidence for the most popular forms of alternative medicine. Singh is a science journalist but Ernst is the first 'professor of complementary medicine' in the UK and as you can imagine advocates 'complementary medicine'. Despite this Ernst cares about evidence so when the evidence is not there for a treatment he doesn't advocate it- which is exactly the position I'm arguing for. In that book they both highlight how every single (except one) of the most popular treatments has no compelling evidence and that it would have been abandoned as a practice if treatment was actually based on evidence for what works. The fact that such practices aren't abandoned and indeed that there is a hospital dedicated to one of the practices in the UK (homeopathy) and university courses offered in the subjects (from less reputable universities in the UK) doesn't change the evidence.

    I appreciate you listing the textbooks and that you haven't had time to pull specific articles yet but to be honest if they are just saying what you mention above then I don't think anyone has argued against that. The amount of attention and care given to a patient will effect recovery even if the extra attention and care is in the form of practices that couldn't possibly cause actual therapeutic effects. Also, once again nobody is suggesting 'stressing' the patients. All they are suggesting is to provide treatments and therapies that are proven. If a patient has incredible faith in crystals and is extremely anxious without them, then sure, let them have crystal therapy, but it just shouldn't be the hospital that promotes the treatment. Again for the very simple fact that it doesn't have evidence and there are many other treatments that DO have evidence and could be used to aid recovery instead. There will always be cases that demand creative solutions but that doesn't mean hospitals shouldn't have a general rule of thumb advocating treatments that are 'evidence based'.

    I also have to say that it is not suprising that a textbook dedicated to promoted the integration of alternative therapies might suggest this is a positive thing. The issue for me is what clinical evidence they use to support such claims. And looking simply at the back cover I see that "Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Nursing Practice" mentions such tired arguments as "Although the information may be new to us, many of these traditions are hundreds or even thousands of years old and have long been part of the medical mainstream in other cultures". It also significantly clearly states:

    So from what little I've looked at now. I can see it is primarily an advoacy book that seems to have selected studies from integrative medicine practitioners to support the need for integration. It also unsuprisingly seems to have incorporated many of the tired cliches about ancient traditions and ethnocentricism.
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2008

Share This Page