in some ways this particular topic highlights the quandry us therapists are in with the whole CI thing.
how are we ever to be taken *seriously* by conventional medicine, when our *leaders and teachers* cant agree amongst themselves what is safe to treat? so if the teachers of pre - post natal believe its fine for us to treat, why do i read in other books (like precision reflex, which i am thoroughly enjoying) do they say not in 1st 13 weeks? maybe because their books are available to general public? (as an aside, would one regulartory body sort out the CI dilemma?)
of my therapies, reflex is my favourite, so i want to learn and improve, to make me a better therapist and make my treatments totally effective.
MY maternity teacher gave us confidence to treat during all aspects of pregnency, from before til after, with the proviso of intuition on therapist or client part (i.e. dont treat if either of you feel it is inappropriate). women who have a history of miscarriage and unstable pregnancies, i probably wouldnt, but i wonder why? only because of possible litigation, already of the belief that if miscarriage occurs it was not down to me, i think.
IVF - tricky one and again down to personal choice on both sides. i think whenever drugs are involved, in this case to create an unnatural situation, i think i wouldnt. reflex balances, as we know, and we may undo the work of the drug reducing chances of successful conception... but having said that, pre and paul, you have points that intention plays a part and also the fact that we reduce stress and anxiety, all contributing factors to conceiving being more difficult.
i think, providing the client was stable after confirming pregnancy and the doctors were happy, i would, as paul says, do gentle treatments, perhaps concentrating more on the subtle energy work of linking and balancing. in these situations i do believe its important for doctors to recognise us and work with us, if thats *our* clients wish.
as ever, always a good debate to hear other professional views.
how are we ever to be taken *seriously* by conventional medicine, when our *leaders and teachers* cant agree amongst themselves what is safe to treat? so if the teachers of pre - post natal believe its fine for us to treat, why do i read in other books (like precision reflex, which i am thoroughly enjoying) do they say not in 1st 13 weeks? maybe because their books are available to general public? (as an aside, would one regulartory body sort out the CI dilemma?)
of my therapies, reflex is my favourite, so i want to learn and improve, to make me a better therapist and make my treatments totally effective.
MY maternity teacher gave us confidence to treat during all aspects of pregnency, from before til after, with the proviso of intuition on therapist or client part (i.e. dont treat if either of you feel it is inappropriate). women who have a history of miscarriage and unstable pregnancies, i probably wouldnt, but i wonder why? only because of possible litigation, already of the belief that if miscarriage occurs it was not down to me, i think.
IVF - tricky one and again down to personal choice on both sides. i think whenever drugs are involved, in this case to create an unnatural situation, i think i wouldnt. reflex balances, as we know, and we may undo the work of the drug reducing chances of successful conception... but having said that, pre and paul, you have points that intention plays a part and also the fact that we reduce stress and anxiety, all contributing factors to conceiving being more difficult.
i think, providing the client was stable after confirming pregnancy and the doctors were happy, i would, as paul says, do gentle treatments, perhaps concentrating more on the subtle energy work of linking and balancing. in these situations i do believe its important for doctors to recognise us and work with us, if thats *our* clients wish.
as ever, always a good debate to hear other professional views.