Dear Alison

Some nice examples. I am personally shocked that anyone doesnt believe in a
strong mind/body relationship and or the perception of pain and behavioural
strategies ensuing are central in nature.

As a student I was told of a survey that listed terminally ill cancer
patients as either fatalist, no feelings towards their fate, fighters and
deniers. The deniers did best and I remember this when I consider practising
amateur concelling or psychology.

I am also suspicious of psychologists. Several small surveys amongst
psychology students; in the early 80''s and sorry I do not have at hand,
show an alarmingly high pyschosis level in psychology students.

This along with the infancy of the science may explain the aggressive
marketing of the psychosocial model, in some quarters. Sometimes I feel
there is a missionary type zeal to convert the thicko PT;s to the more
correct pyschological model of the treatment of pain.

As Gifford said at the 1999 Conf in Birmingham UK. There are many layers we
can influence chronic pain from the genetists to the politician. We all have
a fragment of the picture and a small window of influence. The trick is to
know what you can do and try to help people on this level.

Regards Kevin Reese UK PT
-----Original Message-----
From: alison hall <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 16 February 2000 21:38
Subject: Re: BODY-MIND


>Dear McSiff et al,
>
>Interesting this neuropsycho stuff.  Especially with the debate many of us
>recently had regarding placebo and US.
>
>Just watched a very interesting TV programme by a doctor who is
>investigating this angle.  Noted how a chap who had cancer (I think it was
>lung) had an actual physical shrinking of the tumour with "placebo"
>treatment; when he found out by reading in the newspaper that the
medication
>was not really "effective", his tumour re-grew.  He again had medication
>which he was told would help: yep, you guessed it - tumour shrunk again
>(markedly).  He then read again that the treatment he had wasn't really an
>effective one.  The tumour re-grew and he died shortly after.   Hmmmmm.
>
>May be a lot of this body-mind stuff is coming from the autonomic nervous
>system.  We all know about psychosomatic symptoms - that they really do
>exist but are caused by a stressful/psychological cause.  But surely that
>can work both ways: you get a virus, for example, really do have terrible
>symptoms and this "stresses your mind", perpetuating the symptoms.
>
>My mate told me that she read about this guy in USA who is an "expert" in
>M.E.  Apparently, if a patient comes in saying that all the docs tell him
he
>has M.E. but personally the patient intimates that he doesn't feel that he
>has, the expert says,
>
>"Well, I am the leading World Expert in M.E. and I don't think you have it
>but I believe that you will get better".
>
>Should the patient say that he feels he definitely has got M.E., Doc says,
>"Well, I am the leading World Expert in M.E. and I believe you definitely
>have got M.E.  If you follow my advice, you will get better".  Apparently
he
>has an amazingly high success rate.
>
>My physio assistant keeps saying that in the Day Hospital where I work
alone
>on a particular weekday, she frequently overhears the patients say to one
>another that I make a huge difference to them every week.  I began
realising
>that after every treatment (and often at start of treatment) many of the
>same patients would say to me that they always felt better and they knew I
>was doing them good.  I think they're encouraged when they see one of their
>peers improve in front of them.  The ones that say that they will not get
>better before we start on them and keep up this negative attitude do tend
to
>slip back and do worse, despite whether or not we actually initially sort
>out their problems.  The positive ones do seem to progressively improve,
>even if slightly. I do try to be enthusiastic and positive with all the
>patients, and try to show that I do care about them and have a personal
>desire (which is actually very real) to help them as best as I possibly
can.
>
>I am not trying to suggest that the mere therapist-patient interaction ONLY
>helps the healing process, but I am sure it goes a long way towards it.  As
>Ian pointed out in the US debate, may be it is our personal "human"
>interaction skills with each patient, which will consist of many things
>including: understanding, patience, confidence, interest in the well-being
>of the patient, and a desire to help them, as we concurrently physically
>treat them with our techniques be it manual or machine, that ultimately
>speeds the healing process.  These skills are built up with pre-existing
>knowledge of the subject, people and all our current and past experiences
>and willingness to learn more.
>
>We know ourselves that if we visit a caring doctor who gives us time and
>confidence that we "feel" much better, than if the doctor brushes us off
>like our problem is unimportant and he has no time for us (a point brought
>up in the TV programme).
>
>Naturally, we need the skills to cause a physical improvement so that the
>patient actually does get better with our hands on - and indeed, you would
>need to cause a physical change to get the patient's trust first so they
>believe you can help.  What I am saying is that our actual physio skills
>(hands-on) are highly important in the healing process.  However, surely if
>we remain positive and enthusiastic it may help to speed along the process.
>We all know anyway we need to get their trust to get patient compliance.
Of
>course, we also need to be honest when we can't help someone - but when we
>think we can help them, we should really try to be positive, even if we are
>honest with the patient that we can only get them "partially" better.  But
>better nonetheless.
>
>Alison.
>
>>From: [log in to unmask]
>>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: BODY-MIND
>>Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:38:24 EST
>>
>>On 2/15/00, Niel Spielholz<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>><< I think there is a little misunderstanding of what the term, "A healthy
>>mind in a healthy body", originally meant. It comes from the Greek "Mens
>>sana
>>in corporum sanum" (I hope I haven't botched the Greek endings), which
>>expressed a goal to be strived for, not that possessing one leads to
>>possessing the other. The Greeks believed in developing the mind and the
>>body, and their goal was to be "healthy" in both. >>
>>
>>***You are correct in questioning the original aphorism. I intentionally
>>quoted it as it is popularly applied today in order to make those
>>contradictions more apparent.
>>
>>It has indeed been stated that the saying has been misapplied,
>>mistranslated
>>or only partially quoted out of its original context.  The version that
you
>>quote above is in Latin ("mens sana in corpore sano"), which emphasises
>>that
>>the original (Greek?) form is very rarely quoted or known.  Apparently the
>>Roman, Juvenalis (Juvenal), wrote this in his work "Saturae", though most
>>of
>>us state that its origins lie in earlier Greek philosophy.
>>
>>Has anyone come across the earliest origins of this aphorism?  Does anyone
>>know how its original appeared in Greek?  Has anyone even seen it in
Greek?
>>
>><<The original use of the phrase was not meant to imply a mind-body
>>interaction. If people are using it in that context, then they are taking
>>it
>>out of context. Or at least that's how I remember hearing Socrates (or was
>>it
>>Plato?) describe it to the
>>class as we walked in the gardens.>>
>>
>>***Now you will have many of us guessing - was it Socrates, Plato, Juvenal
>>or
>>someone less well known ?
>>
>>Mel Siff
>>
>>Dr Mel C Siff
>>Denver, USA
>>[log in to unmask]
>>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%