Editorial: Therapeutic Touch

-- by Tom Napier

It is traditional for editorials to convey dire warnings. This one is concerned with a hitherto unsuspected biological hazard which could affect the well-being of everyone on this planet.

In 1895, when it was found that Roentgen Rays could reveal things inside the human body, their use became widespread in a very few years. Before long it emerged that these useful rays could also cause damage. Both patients and doctors started showing radiation burns. Methods of reducing and controlling the dose were introduced. This stopped the burns. It was not for many years that more insidious damage, the induction of cancer, was noted and the use of X-Rays was further regulated.

History repeats itself. I quote from the New York Times, "A patient in a Midwestern hospital reportedly complained after a careless biofield practitioner, working on someone in the next bed, scooped some negative energy onto him." All over the country, nurses and specialists are applying therapeutic touch to clear patients' energy fields without a clue as to what side-effects they may be causing.

What are the properties of negative energy? Where does it go when it is removed from a patient? Can it infect another patient or even the practitioner?

What precautions are being taken to protect the public from negative energy? Can it be destroyed by incineration? Should it be treated as hazardous biological waste? For how long is it dangerous, does it need long term isolation from the biosphere? Will Congress allocate funding to the Department of Energy to investigate safe disposal? How long will it be before negative energy from New York's hospitals washes up on the New Jersey beaches?

There must be an immediate moratorium on the use of therapeutic touch until these questions are resolved. Call your Congressman now!

OK, I exaggerate a little. But consider medical ethics? Either therapeutic touch works or it doesn't. If it works, if we have tapped into some new energy field, it could be every bit as powerful and every bit as dangerous as X-rays. It should not be in the hands of amateurs. It should be scientifically investigated and its use regulated before someone gets hurt.

And if it is worthless? Then those who practice it are wasting their time and our hospitals' money.

Go to the PhACT Home Page

Return to the PhACT article archive