Animal Reiki?

Re: Animal Reiki?

J G Wray — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:00:24 GMT

From the RCVS

Reiki is not strictly defined in our Guide to Professional Conduct, so the main thing is that practitioners comply with the general legislation. If what they intend to carry out is manipulative therapy, then this is fine provided the animal has first been seen by a veterinary surgeon who has diagnosed the condition and decided that it should be treated by physiotherapy (interpreted to include all forms of manipulative therapy), under his or her direction. If it is spiritual or faith healing, then practitioners are required in terms of the Code of Practice of the Confederation of Healing Organisations to make certain that animals have been seen by a veterinary surgeon who is content for healing to be given by the laying on of hands.

On the other hand, lay practitioners are not entitled to carry out any forms of ‘complementary therapy’ as this is reserved for veterinary surgeons alone (although those veterinary surgeons must be adequately trained)."

Regs

JGW

Re: Animal Reiki?

Ian Mostyn — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:55:02 GMT

I have a rock on my desk from the foothills of Mt Kenya. It had an incantation performed over it by the local Shamen and the locals use it to keep Lions away. I have to say it has worked for me because there are no lions within 50 miles (must check Chester Zoo).

I believe in Herbalism as Aspirin / Penicillin / Digoxin exist. I believe acupuncture can stimulate nerves and help some conditions. I do not believe an email with warm wishes can do anything. The Wright brothers had a demonstrable machine, Flemming had a mould that inhibited bacteria, she has a warm, fuzzy feeling. Still think it is one for Trading Standards rather than anyone else.

Ian

Re: Animal Reiki?

Niall Taylor — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:57:34 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

In sharp contrast to any transient controversy which might have surrounded the Wright brothers, Mystic medicine in all its manifestations, remains stuck where it started with none of the accumulation of evidence that inevitably follows any genuine discovery, invention or engineering break-through - dependent exclusively on faith and anecdote and requiring us (and these are the bits I have most trouble with) to suspend our belief in the science that produces a system of medicine that can be validated repeatedly, predictably and independently and also ignore the fact that the work of the medical mystics can't be validated in the same way.

[/quote]

Excellent post Malcolm.

For a humorous take on the aviation metaphor have a look here - http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/alteng.html for an article on alternative engineering:

"Alec is also quick to point out that ancient Chinese documents reveal absolutely no accounts of collapsing suspension bridges. His technique's safety record is, he argues, unparalleled. "How else would it have survived all these years if it didn't work?"

"I'm too busy designing bridges to jump through some skeptic's hoops. They will never be satisfied, anyway. The American motorists should be free to decide for themselves if they wish to drive over one of my bridges. I respect their intelligence and ability to make smart decisions for themselves. They don't need to be told by some bureaucrat, or professor in an ivory tower, which bridges are safe and which are not."

Well worth a read.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Animal Reiki?

Alex Gough — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:26:36 GMT

Totally agree Malcolm. However, just to ensure you didn't think I was suggesting that alternative medicine might be ok because they laughed at the Wright Brothers, the full quote I posted was:

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. " Carl Sagan.

Alex

Re: Animal Reiki?

Malcolm Ness — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:27:45 GMT

"They laughed at the Wright brothers"

I have seen this and other similar silliness said previously in defence of mystic medicine like Reiki, Homoeopathy etc.

The argument is empty. There are fundamental differences between the two and it matters not a jot whether somebody, anybody everybody or nobody laughed, or didn't laugh at the Wright Brothers.

What the flying brothers did was to extrapolate and use existing knowledge of physics, specifically fluid dynamics, to design and engineer a machine that worked. That the machine worked was shown beyond doubt and it remains a relatively easy thing to show that aeroplanes still fly, quite predictably and this is because of the rules of fluid dynamics. Occassionally they crash and that too is usually due to unemotional and incontravertible adherence to the same rules. Aeroplanes don't fly because everybody believes that they will fly. Indeed, on the average passenger plane, some individuals will be overtaken by a fear which might be so great as to produce physical signs - pallor, dysphonia, shivering etc. Irrational or otherwise, these signs might be analogous to the warm fuzzy feeling reported by the faithful following the ministrations of the medical mystics.

I do not yet have any real interest in HOW this mystic medicine might work, I am still stuck with finding any evidence that is DOES actually work. It is not being cynical or closed minded, I am simply in need of better evidence than popularity amongst the gullible or desperate or tales of warm fuzzy feelings, no matter how numerous and consistent the reports are. The fact that lots of people realy, really believe in something doesn't count as proof or even reliable evidence. If Islam is the one true religion, are all the Christians wrong? Similarly, you don't have to go far to find a mass of cigarette smokers who will swear that the habit makes them feel better.

Mystic medicine, whether Reike, homoeopathy or whatever is currently undeserving of the title "Alternative" - it will only be an alternative if it can be shown to be effective. If vets want to turn their back on their conventional medical training and practise mystic medicine instead, then they should be free to do so. However, they shouldn't continue to hide behind their MRCVS as that could easily mislead an unsuspecting animal owner into believing that the unproven medical mysticism is a genuine, proven alternative to contemporary conventional medicine.

Malcolm N

Re: Animal Reiki?

Alex Gough — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:09:14 GMT

Ok, really off topic, but from Wikipedia:

In 1906, skeptics in the European aviation community had converted the press to an anti-Wright brothers stance. European newspapers, especially in France, were openly derisive, calling them bluffeurs (bluffers).^[62] Ernest Archdeacon, founder of the Aéro-Club de France, was publicly scornful of the brother's claims in spite of published reports; specifically, he wrote several articles and in 1906, stated that the French would make the first public demonstration of powered flight.^[63]

The Paris edition of the New York Herald summed up Europe's opinion of the Wright brothers in an editorial on February 10, 1906:

"The Wrights have flown or they have not flown. They possess a machine or they do not possess one. They are in fact either fliers or liars. It is difficult to fly. It's easy to say, 'We have flown.'"^[62]

I must admit I presumed the scepticism would have been before they flew not afterwards!

Alex

Re: Animal Reiki?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:43:56 GMT

Did many people really laugh at the Wright brothers?

Re: Animal Reiki?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:38:07 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]

[quote user="alex gough"]

Which part do you object to Martin, the calls for her to be prosecuted, or the suggestion that animal reiki probably doesn't work?

[/quote]

The diversion of the thread into the question of whether "reiki" or "distance healing" might be effective was interesting, but it's now led you to miss the point about the law.

It doesn't matter remotely whether this lady's techniques are effective or not. If she is doing what she says she is doing, she is treating disease in animals. Since she is not a veterinary surgeon, then in the UK she is breaking the letter of the law unless she is doing this stuff with the immediate consent of a veterinary surgeon who has examined the animal. Whether it would be sensible to take any notice or to initiate a prosecution is another question. My own opinion is that it would be really silly. Especially when there are other people running round carrying out surgery on animals illegally and doing obvious and immediate harm.

Re: Animal Reiki?

Martin Jones — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:22:19 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]

Which part do you object to Martin, the calls for her to be prosecuted, or the suggestion that animal reiki probably doesn't work?

[/quote]

The first bit, Alex, only the first bit; the second is opinion, which is (more or less) an absolute right to express. It's unedifying that we're calling for somebody to be prosecuted through our own inferences and conclusions. The point I'm making is that she might be a charlatan, or she might not; Reiki might effective, or it might not. But I think we're going about it wrong.

My opinion about homeopathy is just that. I'm more than happy for my clients to pursue it if they wish; I'd rather they gave my pills and potions a shot at the same time, and if they attribute any improvement to non-allopathic treatment, then I'll grind my teeth at the unfairness of it all, but I'm big and ugly (as you know) and I'll probably get over it.

You said before that it's important how we come across; my argument is that the tone of the thread is not representing us well as a profession. I'm not saying that we should welcome such people with open arms, or that we believe in everything till disproved (although it's hardly the worst position to adopt, is it?). Just that we look with our own eyes - and my experiences of homeopathy have informed me in a way that is completely unrelated to any research on the matter - and that we're at least imbued with a sense of common respect for things that we may never come to understand.

Martin

Re: Animal Reiki?

Alex Gough — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:57:01 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"] But the tone of this discussion isn't exactly covering us in glory.[/quote]

Which part do you object to Martin, the calls for her to be prosecuted, or the suggestion that animal reiki probably doesn't work?

[quote user="Martin Jones"]

I really don't know whether there's anything positive in animal reiki; I am certain, though, that I don't hold all the answers and that six years at college didn't give me the power of omniprescience. Wouldn't it be ace if there was something there, though?

[/quote]

Absolutely. For the most popular alternative medicines, research has been done that prove generally they work little better or no better than placebo. For less popular ones such as reiki, there is less research out there. Does that mean we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they work unless proven otherwise? If so, which of the myriad of alternative treatments with no evidence for or against should we select? Without evidence for what works and what doesnt, it is a pretty random choice. And if there is not even a physiologically plausible mode of action, then the likelihood is it will be ineffective. A good clinical trial could contradict this, like you say we dont know everything, but in the absence of one, you have to go with what is most likely to work.

[quote user="Martin Jones"]For the record, I think homeopathy is a giant bag of bum - based on (by the time I came to the conclusion) twelve years of watching it do precisely nothing[/quote]

What is your experience of homeopathy? Doing, or seeing someone do it? Do you think though that you needed personal experience of it not working to be convinced, rather than trial data?

Alex

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. " Carl Sagan.

hey laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Re: Animal Reiki?

Martin Jones — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:20:00 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

Current attitudes towards the professions as they are, any campaign would be at risk of being spun by the media as a caring alternative practitioner being victimised by a grasping profession intent on guarding its corner.

[/quote]

Surely not? Why on earth would they think that?

For the record, I think homeopathy is a giant bag of bum - based on (by the time I came to the conclusion) twelve years of watching it do precisely nothing; but it's a bit of a closed mind that would lump any and all non-allopathic medical interventions as being founded on the same principles, and therefore subject to the same refutals.

Somebody must live nearby; go and talk to her and write it up. If she's an evil quack, say so; if she heals your chakras and realigns your wig then also say so. But the tone of this discussion isn't exactly covering us in glory.

Martin

Re: Animal Reiki?

Niall Taylor — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:37:30 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]if this woman is not under veterinary direction, then she is still breaking the law, so should be prosecuted[/quote]

I've looked at her web site and I'm not sure that she has gone far enough in her claims to be breaking the law. There is some talk about her helping some of her own pets when she was young then treating one horse with laminitis, another with a small cut over its eye and a cat with an abscess. The circumstances of how these conditions are not specified; it's not mentioned whether or not she was working with veterinary approval, whether she was brought in to treat these specific conditions or whether she just happened to be there when the conditions resolved and is claiming credit or indeed whether she charged for her services.

To my eye all her claims are extremely vague, probably delibarately, so you can bet, for all her lack of linguistic skills, she has a firm grasp of her legal situation. The word "healing" is used in a New-Agey way to suggest restoring "balance" - meaningless verbiage but exactly the sort of stuff that people who believe in this sort of thing thrive on.

She claims to communicate with animals, ease their anxiety and to "balance" and "center" them; she may well offer to open and close chakras on request. One thing I can't see written down is where she offers to cure cancers, endocrinopathies or any other specific disease process. In fact, if she is true to her beliefs she probably doesn't even believe in "disease" as a concept at all. If pressed I'm sure that's what she would say she meant by "healing"; these people make an art of non-specific, woolly claims and are past masters at not getting tied down in any detailed issues - the last thing they want is to be making measurable claims.

These things infuriate me no end (as if you hadn't guessed by now !) so if you are writing or have written to RCVS and/or trading standards let me know and I'll write as well and I'm sure other members of the forum could also be persuaded to do so. With this sort of thing numbers count and I can think of a few other places where a similar request would generate substantial amounts of outrage. But I wouldn't hold out much hope of success. Current attitudes towards the professions as they are, any campaign would be at risk of being spun by the media as a caring alternative practitioner being victimised by a grasping profession intent on guarding its corner.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Animal Reiki?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:35:58 GMT

We are drifting slightly from the original topic, which was that a non-veterinarian is treating animals. I think the original mistake was made very soon after the 1948 VSA, which made this illegal RCVS then stupidly allowed physiotherapists to treat animals (but only under veterinary supervision ) without defining exactly what they meant by physios. If they had stated Chartered Physiotherapists, there would have been no problem, so it is arguable that this is a form of physio. However, if this woman is not under veterinary direction, then she is still breaking the law, so should be prosecuted

Wynne

Re: Animal Reiki?

Alex Gough — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:46:04 GMT

It's telling that it doesn't seem to matter too much whether it is Reiki, or needling, or praying, they all give you the same warm feeling, whereas remote reiki "stretches credulity" so doesn't work so well. Makes it seem very plausible that these are all placebo effects. That being the case, there is a rationale for using these procedures in humans, (or at least credulous ones). The trouble is the placebo effect, although sometimes powerful, is unpredictable, and may be having little effect on the underlying disease (although sometimes it does). More importantly to us, the placebo effect hasn't been shown to exist in animals, although it is possible that it does exist. More likely is that responses we see in animals treated with placebos are to do with a host of other reasons which are oft quoted (owner and physician perception and bias, regression to mean, self-limiting disease, incorrect diagnosis, publication bias etc).

[quote user="warwickshire vet"]A few years ago I started reading and collecting old veterinary textbooks - from 1600 on. It is fascinating to read about how the same complaints we see today are explained and treated - often with good results - the medicine is good but the explaination is different from what we believe today.[/quote]

I do the same actually, although don't have any books as far back as yours - my oldest is late 1700s which lists all 20 MRCVSs!

What medicine have you come across that is "good" in these old books? Much of what I read in these older books is likely to be ineffective or dangerous, although there are some obviously useful basic things. Its also hard to judge "good results" - the scientific method for evaluating results is relatively recent, and it is only in the 20th century that we started genuinely sorting out what works and what doesnt.

[quote user="warwickshire vet"]Just because we cant explain it doesn't mean its no good![/quote]

Absolutely. That's why medicines should be trialled, and shown to be effective. If they work and are safe, it doesnt matter whether we know how they work.

[quote user="warwickshire vet"]It made me realise that what we believe today will probably the next centuries amusing anecdotes.[/quote]

I'm sure that's true, in 50 years they will be saying "OMG, you used WHAT to treat cancer?"

All we can do is the best we have with the best available evidence. We are more likely to be condemned in the future if we ignore current evidence. For example George Washington was bled to death as a treatment for a fever, despite evidence already around that bleeding was a deleterious form of treatment. And Dr Spock continued to advise babies to sleep on their front long after there was evidence to suggest that this increased the risk of cot death.

Alex

Re: Animal Reiki?

warwickshire vet — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:01:33 GMT

Dont knock it until you have tried it. My interest in this alternative medicine came from a few experiences of other people and my own - my mother went to an alternative centre when diagnosed with cancer (and having the chemo so covering all the bases) and had sessions from both a reiki 'healer' and also a christian 'healer'. She said both experiences produced a similar feeling of intense heat and a sense of calm/well being afterwards - to the point where said both treatments were identical altough the explainations of action were poles apart ! I too have had acupuncture and reiki from a human nurse (as opposed to a vet nurse!) and found the experience of treatment very potent - stress points on the head induced a deep sleep which was like the GA I had a a a kid (masked down with halothane!). All difficult to explain as to how it worked in my 21st century mdical brain, maybe just counselling with needles, but the feeling of warmth/wellbeing in the affected area is shared by others who I have spoken to about having reiki. I am talking about hands on reiki not 'remote reiki' which stretches credulity but has followers (my scottish stepmother). So how does this work with animals? My own theory is that often when i examine an animal I have a 'feeling' that this animal is unwell - it' feels' sick to me. Am I sensitive to its poor coat uraemic breath weight loss or am I picking up on its aura/chakra/ying and yang/ whatever - I dont know. Similar with the chinese 'tui na' which uses acupressure and massage - it has calmed many horse cats and dogs for me - and their owners ! It seems to help me in my day to day work which is mostly 99% standard veterinary medicine - polo ponies to reptiles and orthopaedics.

A few years ago I started reading and collecting old veterinary textbooks - from 1600 on. It is fascinating to read about how the same complaints we see today are explained and treated - often with good results - the medicine is good but the explaination is different from what we believe today. Whatever else has changed in 400 years, pathology of disease hasn't! It made me realise that what we believe today will probably the next centuries amusing anecdotes. Just because we cant explain it doesn't mean its no good! I do believe there are those who exploit this whole spiritual notion though - there are charlatans and snake oil sellers too!

Re: Animal Reiki?

Niall Taylor — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:38:15 GMT

Apparently this woman is also a bit of a mechanic, judging by this testimonial from Jill Parker, "Please can you help my car Mischief. He was 2 years old at the end of April." Must be useful, what with all this cold weather.

She has a personal mandate from St Francis himself to help animals and claims to be able to communicate telepathically with them. Of course all the statements in her web site are vague enough to stay on the right side of the law while at the same time subtly suggesting that she can perform great acts of healing; so long as nothing specific is put down in writing (oh, apart from healing a small laceration in a horse in only a week - such wondrous artifice).

Bunkum, but then, there's one born every minute.

Niall

Re: Animal Reiki?

Alex Gough — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:31:34 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]There are more things etc......... and we're starting to look like a right bunch of reactionaries lately.[/quote]

I agree how we present ourselves is important. That doesn't make me in any way inclined to promote, support or encourage treatments that are not just not evidence based, but have evidence they don't work, and are biologically implausible. If we go along with this guff, then how are the clients supposed to distinguish us with our scientific training, and evidence based, or at least physiologically probably useful, from the slightly strange lady down the road who is a "healer", or the chiropractor or homeopath offering to treat serious disease with ineffective methods?

Alex

Re: Animal Reiki?

Martin Jones — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:18:21 GMT

As a fairly wise person said to me recently, what that woman needs is a damn good listening to. She might be full of hot air (which would at least contain some energy), or she might be very good at calming the owner; she might even be what she claims to be. Any chance that someone can find out? I can't really see where she's from, but someone might be able to pop round for a chat, maybe with a view towards interview for the site. Any thoughts, Arlo?

Do I personally think it works? I have no idea. A few years ago I crossed paths with a guy who did some energy/faith healing (never really did pin down his personal philosophy), and I put him in touch with some friends with a spinally arthritic rottie. Whether or not he improved the dog, his calmness in the presence of both patients and owners allowed them to destress and deal with the situation much more effectively. I felt that this alone increased the dog's time with us. The fact that the guy didn't charge at all certainly helped in terms of how I viewed his motivation, but I'm not sure that I'd have minded if he had.

There are more things etc......... and we're starting to look like a right bunch of reactionaries lately. Elevating our position by dragging down the opposition (and clients don't have the 'benefit' of our fine education and finely honed sense of self, so they won't necessarily distinguish between us, a reiki healer or the pet aisle at Tescos) will ultimately cover us with mud.

Martin

Re: Animal Reiki?

Ian Mostyn — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:36:07 GMT

It is probably legal semantics (and personally I think she is wrong) but she only states that she offers healing energy to the pet. The VSA 1966 allows non-vets to use manipulative methods to treat animals, presumably just using crystals and healing energy would fall through these gaps as nothing is administered to the animal and no manipulation other than normal handling is done. Healing by email similarly is probably not prohibited (wasn't around in 1966!!). Are crystals treatment?

I suspect she is legal from the VSA because the act wont classify this as treatment. If she is not actually treating the animal, has she done anything wrong? I still think Trading Standards are the best option.

Ian

Re: Animal Reiki?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:59:33 GMT

[quote user="Ian Mostyn"]But she is neither claiming to be a vet nor offering a diagnosis [/quote]

It doesn't matter. She is offering to treat disease in animals. Offering is not an offence, but to actually attempt treatment is a straightforward offence under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

However she could if she wanted do this quite legally, as it would I think come under the definition of "faith healing" or "laying on of hands" if only she could bring herself to do it with the permission of the veterinary surgeon in each case, rather than independently.

Re: Animal Reiki?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:10:37 GMT

It is a criminal offence for anyone not on the register to diagnose or TREAT disease in animals, so a crime is being committed. Time for RCVS to take a lwaf out of the Farriers Registration Council book and undertake a private prosecution

Wynne

Re: Animal Reiki?

Ian Mostyn — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:58:41 GMT

[quote user="Robert Whiteford"] She is a charlatan (see previous discussions). Report to RCVS.

[/quote]

But she is neither claiming to be a vet nor offering a diagnosis so charlatan or not the RCVS are toothless. Trading Standards may be more appropriate but I suspect it would have to be a trial case for the courts to decide whether she is misleading people or not.

Ian

Re: Animal Reiki?

Robert Whiteford — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:50:55 GMT

Laughable in some ways but she is offering to treat animals - a right reserved for veterinary surgeons! We didn't spend all that time (and money) at college just so that some snake-oil salesman can con the gullible. She is a charlatan (see previous discussions). Report to RCVS.