Nothing too surprising about the tone of this article in the Daily Mail - it is by a science blogger after all.
It was comment made at at 02:58 PM together with the identity of the commenter which caught my eyeAs an atheist, the notion that one should pray for the recovery of someone who is ill has always struck me as one of the most baffling and absurd of religious propositions.
Just read the comments after the article...
Religious arguing always makes my head hurt. The bible says this, the bible says that. Whoever put that book together really thought it through... there's an answer for absolutely everything and it's contradiction.
I knew he was a closet loony!Originally Posted by chaggle
Personally I think it has more to do with us, all of us. I don't believe in praying or that there is anyone to pray to. It's more about right and wrong thinking, positive and negative thinking. Most of us know we can't cure cancer but coming together in a positive, healing, focused way can ease someone's pain.
If that seems hard to swallow, think about what you would do if your child was very sick. The doctors have done there work and now all you can do is wait. What do you do in those hours of waiting? What kind of thoughts do you have?
What does "healing" actually mean? I came across a cancer support site a couple of years ago - the post is still here somewhere - where the "healer" wrote that "healing" has nothing to do with the verb "to heal".
I, in my small-minded way, have the naive thought that "healing" is curing. I cut my finger, put some antiseptic on it, and a week or so later, the wound has healed.
But the "special" definition of "healing" is what? Supporting, empathising, comforting, counselling? I don't know.
Now, I'm off the point, but show me a "healer" who can cure (heal) a burn, broken limb, appendicitis, pneumonia, or dozens of other serious illnesses, and then I'll think about accepting that "healing" is more than a non-evidence-based belief system.
Last edited by bindeweede; 31st July 2010 at 12:16 AM.
Healing doesn’t necessarily mean to make well. We can help people heal by helping them to accept the inevitable. It's the struggle that causes unnecessary suffering.
Rose, I think that's a misleading use of the word. The primary definition of "healing" in the dictionaries I've studied is "To restore to health or soundness; to cure", and that's the way it is understood in common parlance.
Using your definition, anyone could claim to be a "healer" if they could provide a bit of comfort; but if people desperate for a cure see that someone is a "healer" they might be attracted to use their services, thinking that it might help them be cured.
So do I. "Heal" means "make whole". What then does it mean if not "make well"? It's the same sort of attempt at deliberate ambiguity as "dis-ease".
I hear this on a daily basis here, with "healers" using everything from acupuncture to angels, Reiki to reflexology.
God it's depressing.
Clearly a nutcase.
.
Alt. Meddlers do use the term healing in a different way to conventional medicine. It's more about making people feel better rather than curing anything - but the equivocal use of the term makes them sound like the equivalent of proper healers.
A useful distinction often used in medicine is the difference between disease and illness:
It's possible to have a disease without feeling ill (high blood pressure, for example), and its possible to feel ill without having any disease (psychosomatic illnesses, for example). Obviously, disease often leads to feeling ill too.
- Disease: the physiological, infection, damage, etc. i.e. a physiological or pathological condition that affects the functioning of the body in some way.
.- Illness: how the person feels. i.e. a subjective perception of their health status, whether they have a disease or not.
If we think about conventional medicine then its primary aim is to treat or cure disease. With Alt. medicine it's usually to treat the subjective illness; but making a person feel better can give the illusion of 'healing' a disease.
If alternative therapies/interventions are used as complementary treatments (i.e. the person is still getting real treatment) then these things may help the individual feel better; but the real danger comes in using alternative therapies as truly alternative treatments (i.e. the person is not getting real treatment) because the individual may be made to feel better, but their disease is actually not being treated.
If alternative medicine practitioners would be honest and admit that their modalities of treatment/intervention are solely aimed at alleviating illness (i.e. placebo effects) then we wouldn't have such controversy with their claims. But they want to think of themselves as the equivalent of real doctors - as such, they'll always pose a danger to people with disease.
.
Perhaps. I was thinking more along the lines of a therapist helping us heal. They don’t cure us or take away the emotional pain and scars but they can provide us with the information that allows us to help ourselves. My whole life has felt like a healing process. The pain of childhood abuse doesn’t go away but we can learn to cope with it in a more positive, healing way.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks