Relief vs. cure: What is the standard?

[deckels]

Dear friends,
Namaskar.

We use the terms relief and cure vey frequently. But probably our concepts about the terms vary.

Suppose Z is suffering from headache. He can experience the level of its severity and the level of incapacitation. By intervention or otherwise when the feeling of severity reduces, one says that I am a bit relieved and when he does not feel headache at all he says that I am relieved. But can it be said that he is cured? I do not think so. Cure is something more than just relief. To me cure means 0 level of probability of reccuring of that ailment from which one is cured. Thus, if Z is cured from headache he will not have headache during his life time any further.

Do you agree with this standard? If so, what are the the therapies that may be known to you which give relief from any ailment and what are the therapies which cure? Are there really therapies which lead to cure from any ailment?

Regards,
Jogeshwar

 

[fnenyurxiapiscecj]

Well, I was taught that we as therapists must never and are not allowed to claim to cure, (partly as it could be a claim used by charlatans to extract money from vulnerable people.)

I dont know any complementary therapies that could be proven to permanently cure conditions, but I hope we all have succesful cases where relief is obtained for long periods, with the ailment not causing anymore problems. But would be reluctant to claim anything as permanent as it might feasibly come back one day.

We can claim successes, for an example as in the many clients with subfertility who go on to have babies, but is that regarded as a cure?? and can we prove it was our therapy that made it happen, NO, but it certainly is satisfying to see happy clients and makes us feel our work is worthwhile. They are certainly appreciative.

Are you a therapist?

Jan

 

[Nmsbxqwtatbcj]

I have appreciation for jan for several reasons which i shall elaborate later. Before that can there be comments on the status of main stream therapies as well as alternative therapies? regards.

 

[Jacks]

Claiming to "cure" anything is illegal to start with...

I ahve a friend who had Crown's disease and thnaks to acupuncture she doe snot have any signs of it anymore. Doctors tell her "it's in remission, it's as if you never had it". I owuld still not say it was "cured" but that it is now "gone".

Artemis

 

[Lila Surbia]

namaskar. i wonder, if there can be such a law. will you please quote the provision? regards.

 

[htescuazindiccexp]

Login...

In Britain it is indeed against the law for any alternative healer or therapist to claim that they can cure anything...


Amber

 

[TheGrandOnion]

namaskar.

In fact, in india the situation is different. There are Government approved therapies inclusive of certain alternative therapies. Those which are not approved are not banned. Law comes into picture when a client is cheated or given wrong treatment resulting adverse consequences. For example, mystics are free to claim anything but so long cheating is not complained, law remains silent. the complementary therapies like reiki, eft etc.are yet to be grafted in indian culture. Whereas alternative therapies like ayurveda, unani, homeopathy, naturopathy and yoga are government approved. Level of relief or cure is not yet a legal issue. any therapy approved or not depends upon the trust of a client. Even qualification and certification are not necessary for any traditional or innovative therapy. But law steps in in case of doctored certificate.

Ayurveda, homeopathy, unani, naturopathy and yoga are alternative therapies but as you say the therapists can not claim cure. Then what is their understanding with the client? Do the therapists take an undertaking of informed consent before starting a therapy? How do they go about? regards.