Niamh Hooper in her article on Emotional Field Therapy (EFT) in last week's HealthSupplement posed the question, if it works, who cares?
I care very much and so should your readers. EFT is one of a plethora of variations of Thought Field Therapy (TFT), a system that has no scientific support and has been excluded from sponsorship for continuing education by the American Psychological Association.
The Arizona Board of Psychological Examiners has recently reprimanded a psychologist for using TFT and "Voice Technology" (VT) in his practice. VT is claimed as an advanced technique in which the practitioner analyses patients' voices over the telephone and determines where the patient should tap themselves.
Aside from anecdotes that are scientifically worthless as evidence, there is nothing to indicate that these practices have any efficacy whatsoever.
From a scientific perspective, claimed existence of energy systems that can be unblocked by tapping acupuncture points is nonsensical. Furthermore, any system that claims instant therapeutic impact on complex psychological problems should be regarded with serious scepticism.
EFT practitioner Bridie Kelly is quoted as saying that according to EFT "the cause of all negative emotions is a disruption of the body's energy system" and that by tapping certain meridian energy points "we can effect change in the organs". This is clearly ludicrous.
There are many seriously upset and vulnerable people among the public who on foot of this article might be tempted to seek help via EFT. I would strongly caution against this. It is most unlikely that this form of treatment will have any positive impact and it could result in the exacerbation of distress. It will also deplete the financial resources of some who can ill afford it.
I am also very concerned at the flippant attitude implicit in the quoted comments from the GP Dr Liam Lacey. He may believe in meridians and energy channels, but these beliefs have no basis in fact. If, as a professional whose position as a medically qualified practitioner lends kudos to his words, he is going to comment on a therapy, he should at least do a little research to ascertain what its theoretical basis is and what is involved in its practice.
A glance at the small number of referenced outcome studies would also inform him as to the poverty of their content and design and their lack of scientific merit. Hence, he is in all probability correct in his assumption that they would not be published in the Lancet.
It is a difficult and time-consuming task to try to inform the public with regard to questionable therapeutic practices, but I would encourage all mainstream professionals to devote some time from their busy schedules to this endeavour. It is my view that we are ethically obliged to do so.
Finally, if voodoo science is to be quoted in the pages of the HealthSupplement, I would ask the journalists concerned to make more of an effort to seek balanced critical comment.
Paul O'Donoghue,
Principal Clinical Psychologist,
Woodleigh Elm,
Dublin 6.