Sending distant healing - is permission needed?

I feel it's okay to send distance healing without asking for permission, as it's not always possible, but I ask that Reiki is only received if the person wants it, otherwise send it to heal Mother Earth. It is preferable, though, to ask if someone would like distance healing and give them the choice.

Blessings

Helen

Hi

I never send Reiki without permission - people are entitled to keep their stuff if that is their choice and its not up to me to make that decision for them. If I am really really obsessing about how much they need it, I generally Reiki myself for my issue around it.

However, I have been known to make Reiki available in a situation - that way, they can either take it or walk away, just as they can in person.

Fx

Do you ask for permission to send positive thoughts, blessings, love, well wishes or why not healing? It is nothing more than that. A bit of healing is not going to change anybody's life so it is not that their stuff will fly off the planet because of the healing that is sent. The level of joy/misery in this world remains pretty much at a certain level (with or without healing )until complete transformation happens.
There is no permission needed if it is sent with a loving heart(or why would you send it?!) and if you are overtly concerned about healing someone, you need to look within and see that it is not their need it is yours!

Ah, Jnani - distant Reiki *does* change lives. This is why we ask permission.

Fx

I am not Reiki trained so forgive me if I get this wrong but - I understand that you can send Reiki to a situation or a place - would the same issue of permission apply? As a situation may very well involve people.

Not being contentious - just curious!

Ta!

Hi Celia - as I explained in post #3, when one sends Reiki to a situation people can either accept it or walk away, just as they can when one puts a hand on them in person.

When one sends Reiki to a person without permission, one is making their choices for them, which is, imo, wrong even when it is from the best of intentions.

Fx

Sorry Coerdelion - when you said make it available I didn't read it as you sending it unasked for all, rather that it was a situation that might involve more than the person who had agreed/ accepted - my misunderstanding ... I think....

Ah. "Making Reiki available" from my point of view, is like putting it in the space. It's there ... and a choice.

For example: let's say you have a friendship and you've had a row. You're not talking to this person and you're both feeling like it's the other person's fault and they should apologise. Sending Reiki into that situation is like offering you both a light switch. You have a choice to take the light switch; you have a choice to take the switch, but not use it; you have a choice to use the switch to illuminate the space ... and you have a choice to refuse the switch and continue feeling angry, betrayed, resentful, whatever ...

If I were to send Reiki directly to you or your friend, that would be me turning on the light, pointing out the error of your ways and telling one or both of you what to do. You both still have choices, but not in the same way.

See the difference?

For me, the former is gentler than the latter and more respectful of both of you.

Fx

Whilst I prefer to have permission to send Reiki, it isn't always possible. In these instances I see no reason why Reiki shouldn't be sent. You cannot force Reiki onto someone who doesn't want it - try it, you'll feel resistance and the energy coming back unless you ask for it to be sent to Mother Earth or similar if it isn't wanted as meurighj suggests.

There may be instances where the person is uncontactable and can't be asked or is unable to respond, e.g. if they are unconscious, but their higher self can still decide whether or not to accept that Reiki. If I feel guided to send Reiki in such circumstances but don't because I haven't got permission, then I feel I would be letting that person down.

Reiki is meant to be given with love, it has its own boundaries, it doesn't need us to constrain it with self-imposed rules.

I was always under the impression that any reiki, requested or otherwise, would only be received if needed. Any not required or wanted would either come back, I have yet to have that happen, or go to Mother Earth. Once when I was sending to my brother, requested, I couldn't because my son kept 'coming' to me. He hadn't vocally requested any but, I assumed as he was who I kept connecting to, that he was the one who needed it. At the time I had no idea anything was wrong with him. Not quite the same I know but reiki finds it's own level and we shouldn't really let our pereceptions of how we think it works cloud our good intentions.

Reading the replies so far, it would seem that distant healing is perceived as something different to in person healing, healers perform a healing service, distance does not come into the equation.

Would it be right for a healer to walk up to a stranger in the street and lay their hands upon them and perform a healing session! or enter someone's house uninvited and go into their bedroom and perform healing on them whilst they are asleep?

To my understanding we are all an integral part of the the oneness, we can always ask permission on one level of consciousness or another and receive an answer or some form of indication as to the validity of what we are setting our intention to do.

Just because we can do something does not mean that we should do it with total disregard for anyone else's thoughts and wishes, there is therefore IMO no excuse for presuming that a person is happy for us to interfere in their life and perform a service for them without asking them first.

Is it responsible and ethical to perform a service that has the potential to make changes in people's lives that they have not asked for or agreed to prior to the service being performed?

As a Radionics practitioner, I was taught not give distance healing without permission. For human clients, they would need to give permission, but having said that if they were not capable of giving permission then it could be the permission of the next of kin. If someone was say unconscious, then as soon as they were able to, they would have to give permission to continue. If its a child, the parent/guardian gives permission.

If it is an animal it would be the owner giving permission, or if it was land (such as in agricultural radionics) then the land owner gives permission.

Theoretically I could send distance healing to an area (such as say the middle of an ocean) or to a wild animal etc. But that (for me as a radionics practitioner) has a different method of finding out if its the right thing to do or not.

Rustic

Reading the replies so far, it would seem that distant healing is perceived as something different to in person healing,

Not me, Paul - I approach in person healing and distance healing the same way (if not invited). Offer it/make it available and respect people's conscious choices about whether or not they want to accept it.

Fx

Permission always but on few occasions I have sent reiki and the person will get it only if their higher self accept it otherwise it goes to the ground to be used as positive energy.

I was sent reiki distance healing by a friend without permission and I wasnt happy,she meant well but I would have liked her to ask me first!

Amethsytfairy:)

Hi Rustic

I would still ask permission of the healee irrespective of what the next of kin/guardian thinks, as even in a coma there is always at least one level of consciousness functioning within the oneness that we can connect with.

Hi Fiona

Yes I agree, I found out a long time ago that there was no such thing as distance within the oneness (our thoughts are unbound) and it does not take very long to be polite and ask if they would like our help or not, wherever or in whatever condition they are in (as long as they are still here)

I don't practice Reiki, but with EFT distant/surrogate healing the general principle is that if healing you are sending isn't needed or is not appropriate, it would just "bounce off" so there is no harm in trying to send it, as long as it is with the best of intentions.

I would always recommend to my students that they check out if they may have their own agenda regarding the other person's problem or difficulty - if they do, they need to use EFT for themselves to ensure that they feel at least relatively neutral about it, free from own anxieties, worries and urge to "fix".

As others mentioned, sometimes it is not possible to ask for permission, e.g. I once used EFT for a friend who was in a coma for two weeks (she did come out of the coma and recovered completely - whether my tapping made any contribution whatsoever to her healing I do not know, but I am pretty certain it didn't do any harm).

Masha

Hi Amethsytfairy

You have a conflicting reply there

You are saying "Permission always" but then go on to say "but on few occasions I have sent Reiki and the person will get it only if their higher self accept it".

You then outline that a friend did exactly what you say you have done on occasions, which you were not happy to have done to you.

So which one is it, are you happy to send and receive unsolicited healing from and to people or not? :confused:

I have debated many a time with my reiki students about distant healing and whether to have permission or not. I rather debate with them than indoctrinate with some kind of party line "Thou shan't (sp) do this or that". Debate is healthy and it's up to the practitioner want they wish to belief in. Afer all they are mature adults.

Personally I get permission from the client as a matter of respect and because I feel it's ethical practice. A 'born again' christian friend once said to me that she prays for me. Sorry but I don't want to be prayed for to a entity or energy force that I don't subscribe to, thank you!!! Going back to distant healing, healee has right to be ill, even though you may love them dearly. If someone is ill, should you force healing on to them? Is it the job of the reiki practitioner to interfere in people's lives? This is different to a situation say, a road traffic accident where you give first aid and call 999.

10 years ago a reiki student (first reiki 2 i taught) phoned and asked if she could send some distant healing to me as I had an exam that week. That was fine and go for it I said. On the day of the exam, I woke up very early at 5am completely switched on (very unusual for me). The next day she rang again and asked how it went (fine actually and passed). She then told me that she send a Reiki for "To be able get up nice and early ready and full of energy". Well I certainly was, too much so!

There's a saying in energy and magical working: Becareful what you wish for, it may come true" (or words to that effect).

RP

Hi Rustic

I would still ask permission of the healee irrespective of what the next of kin/guardian thinks, as even in a coma there is always at least one level of consciousness functioning within the oneness that we can connect with.

Hi Paul

I don't think its right to tell the next of kin that at one level of consciousness someone doesn't want healing work done, or doesn't give permission ...... Obtaining that information is based on a belief system, one that has the potential to give the impression that someone has decided to return to spirit, or that what the next of kin think is a good idea is wrong etc etc..... It also seems to presume that a healer is always right in their interpretation/connection to that level of consciousness.

And it implies that the healer can override the wishes of the next of kin. (For example, what about the scenario of the aspect of consciousness connected to saying yes to healing, but the next of kin suddenly changes their mind and doesn't want the healing to be given?)

I think its a question of the professional healer deciding what service they offer and who their professional contract is with.

In my perspective, if I was unconscious, I would want my next of kin/guardian to act in my best interests to get me first aid and further medical help if I needed it etc. I think of energy healing in the same way. I would not expect them to wait til I awoke from a coma to make medical decisions, so I wouldn't expect (or want) them to get anyone to tune in (rightly or wrongly) to an aspect of my consciousness before proceeding with energy work.

I would have no problem with them arranging energy/consciousness based first aid. Based on that, professionally I would do energy work at the request of the next of kin/guardian, who my contract is with temporarily. They can close the contract at any time. When the client is able to give permission, the contract reverts to them. If the client didn't want me to continue, the contract finishes. In those circumstances that would be the service I would offer, those would be my terms and conditions.

Rustic

It's a conundrum (is this how you spell conundrum?) - I by pass the whole issue by choosing to heal up in myself what I perceive to require healing in someone else - if perception is projection then the only reason I can perceive the need for healing in someone else is because it is a reflection of something going on consciously or unconsciously in me.

works a treat for me - does anyone else do this ?

Lou xxx

It's a conundrum (is this how you spell conundrum?) - I by pass the whole issue by choosing to heal up in myself what I perceive to require healing in someone else - if perception is projection then the only reason I can perceive the need for healing in someone else is because it is a reflection of something going on consciously or unconsciously in me.

works a treat for me - does anyone else do this ?

Lou xxx

Yes, Lou - that's what I do when I want to send to someone else and I either can't get permission or they've said no.

Unless you're talking Ho'oponopono, which is also good.

Fx

I'll use any tool at my disposal as there always seems to be rather alot to be getting on with !

Lou xxx

I have wondered over this a lot - I attend reiki shares where there is an opportunity to name people to whom reiki should be sent and some people read out lists for so many people, and entire families and relatives that there is no way they could ever have got permission from them all.
Frankly this kind of treatment without permission show a terrible lack of respect and refelects badly on the healer sending the energy - this kind of 'I know what is best for you' is ego based and carries little or no love with it - however it is a stage that many healers go through, especially in the early days - and this is part of their journey.

We have the ability to alter peoples lives whether they want it or not, or we have the chance to allow them to decide how they want their lives changing, as an occasional recipient I know which I one I want.

love
chris

Hi Rustic

I don't think its right to tell the next of kin that at one level of consciousness someone doesn't want healing work done, or doesn't give permission ......

So, you believe we should lie to someones relatives and go ahead and give a sham healing session which will be blocked to make them feel better, in stead of being real and informing them that at this present moment, the potential healee has chosen not to receive healing from us, but we will connect with the potential healee tomorrow and see if they wish to receive healing then, if so we will return and perform it then or at a later time when they choose to receive it?

Obtaining that information is based on a belief system, one that has the potential to give the impression that someone has decided to return to spirit, or that what the next of kin think is a good idea is wrong etc etc..... It also seems to presume that a healer is always right in their interpretation/connection to that level of consciousness.

If the potential healee had already returned to (spirit) then there would be nothing for us to do, it has nothing to do with us always being right or wrong, it is about our responsibility as healers to allow a healee to decide if they wish to receive healing or not.

Unlike medical practitioners we are not supposed to ride roughshod over someones personal choices and wishes, either because we think we know better than they do, or because we feel it is right out of a sense of love or whatever or because someone else asks us to do so, whatever their motives are.

And it implies that the healer can override the wishes of the next of kin. (For example, what about the scenario of the aspect of consciousness connected to saying yes to healing, but the next of kin suddenly changes their mind and doesn't want the healing to be given?)

As you seem to think it is quite acceptable to override the wishes of the healee and do what the healees next of kin wishes you to do, then why would you have a problem overriding the next of kins wishes and doing what the healee requests of you?

We have a monetary contract with the person who is paying us, but we have a higher energetic contract with the healee.

In this situation, if we have already got permission from the healee, then that overrides anyone else's desires, if we are already connected with the healee, and they give us the go ahead, then the healing is already in place and happening, if the relative then says stop and pushes us out of the door, then you tell me will that stop the healing from happening?

In my perspective, if I was unconscious, I would want my next of kin/guardian to act in my best interests to get me first aid and further medical help if I needed it etc. I think of energy healing in the same way. I would not expect them to wait til I awoke from a coma to make medical decisions, so I wouldn't expect (or want) them to get anyone to tune in (rightly or wrongly) to an aspect of my consciousness before proceeding with energy work.

Healing is always between the healer and the healee, just because someone is physically in a coma and cannot communicate with us verbally, then unless they have already moved on their consciousness is still here, we have an ethical and moral duty to seek permission from them, as to if they would like us to give them healing or not.

I can't understand why any healer should have a problem with the concept that receiving healing should always be a personal choice and that a healee has the same right to exercise their free will to accept or reject healing the same as a healer has the right to exercise their free will to give or withhold healing if they feel it would be inappropriate to give it!

So, you believe we should lie to someones relatives and go ahead and give a sham healing session which will be blocked to make them feel better, instead of being real and informing them that at this present moment, the potential healee has chosen not to receive healing from us, but we will connect with the potential healee tomorrow and see if they wish to receive healing then, if so we will return and perform it then or at a later time when they choose to receive it?

Hi Paul

Why would I be lying to someone’s relatives? :confused: Who says it will be blocked? There are survival mechanisms built into the human bodymind. The science is also there to support that action at a distance is not a sham exercise, and that the receiver does not usually block (so there's no "will be blocked" about it).

The science is not there (that I know of) to support doing some form of connection to some aspect of someone’s consciousness and “asking” them today if they want healing, and if not today then “asking” again tomorrow. That is a belief system that I don’t share. If I shared that belief system, and gave the treatment, I would be giving a sham treatment, but I don’t.

If the potential healee had already returned to (spirit) then there would be nothing for us to do, it has nothing to do with us always being right or wrong, it is about our responsibility as healers to allow a healee to decide if they wish to receive healing or not.

Unlike medical practitioners we are not supposed to ride roughshod over someones personal choices and wishes, either because we think we know better than they do, or because we feel it is right out of a sense of love or whatever or because someone else asks us to do so, whatever their motives are.

I did not say the healee had returned to spirit, I gave the example of if a healee had decided to return to spirit. The healee may still be alive, and even if a person had just died, if we are dealing with consciousness, we can still work after a person has physically departed, and although it’s not my area, there are healers that work in that way (for example with clients with a terminal diagnosis).

Medical practitioners do not all ride roughshod over someone’s personal choices and wishes. That is a sweeping generalisation. After the first aid stage is completed, they still have to take into account that the patient is not able to disclose their wishes in a way that will stand up to professional scrutiny, and unless and until the patient regains consciousness, most will usually understand that the next of kin should have their views considered and respected, even if they ultimately are not prepared to carry out the next of kin’s wishes either then or in the longer term.

The energy healer has the right to decline doing a “first aid” energy healing session, but however much they parade their personal belief system as “truth” it does not make them more ethical or worthy than the healer who does not agree with their beliefs.

As you seem to think it is quite acceptable to override the wishes of the healee and do what the healees next of kin wishes you to do, then why would you have a problem overriding the next of kins wishes and doing what the healee requests of you?

Firstly, because at that point the healee isn’t who the professional contract is with.

I am trained and professionally insured, and have a code of conduct. The potential healee is not in the position to decide or give permission in a way that has any scientific or legal credibility that I know of. In this instance the potential contract has to be with the next of kin, or not at all. The next of kin can ask me to give distance healing, I can choose to accept or decline. If they withdraw consent, making out at a later date that the healee gave me permission whilst in a coma aint gonna wash with a professional or regulatory body or my insurance company.

Secondly, there is also no way a healer should be given the power by the next of kin to decide that a potential healee doesn’t want healing today, (but maybe tomorrow) unless the healer can substantiate what he/she says rather than expect the next of kin to just believe it because they’ve said it.

The healer might well be making a connection to the healee, or they might just think they are making a connection but aren’t really. Theoretically it could be delusion, or it could also be an unconscious ego thing - makes the healer look much grander if they can convince people that they can “connect” in a way that other healers can’t or won’t.

If the next of kin withdraws consent, unless a healer can prove that the healee gave them permission whilst in a coma, or have a solid scientific base (or at the very least a very plausible working concept) to support how they obtained the permission and went against the wishes of the next of kin, I believe that they are on shakey legal ground.

IMO a healer needs to decide whether they are prepared to accept contracts from the next of kin in such circumstances, or that they won’t accept them. It is not enough to be able to say we can make the connection, and make possibly life changing decisions on behalf of the healee ourselves, overriding the next of kin wishes, unless we can substantiate how we got the healee’s permission or otherwise whilst they were in a coma.

I can't understand why any healer should have a problem with the concept that receiving healing should always be a personal choice and that a healee has the same right to exercise their free will to accept or reject healing the same as a healer has the right to exercise their free will to give or withhold healing if they feel it would be inappropriate to give it!

A healer can decline giving the service for whatever reason they like. I have no problem with that. But a healer making some special connection, and saying the comatose client doesn’t want healing, or might want it tomorrow assumes the healer is right. What you are suggesting is a concept, it’s not necessarily truth.

If a healer has an inaccurate or only partially accurate belief system, they are not letting the client decide. The client is not exercising free will to accept or reject healing, the power to make that decision is now being given to a healer, and the healer’s belief system. The healer decides whether the client wants healing today, tomorrow or not at all. That to me is less ethical than letting the next of kin make the decision temperarily.

Rustic:)

Would it be right for a healer to walk up to a stranger in the street and lay their hands upon them and perform a healing session! or enter someone's house uninvited and go into their bedroom and perform healing on them whilst they are asleep?

To my understanding we are all an integral part of the the oneness, we can always ask permission on one level of consciousness or another and receive an answer or some form of indication as to the validity of what we are setting our intention to do.

Just because we can do something does not mean that we should do it with total disregard for anyone else's thoughts and wishes, there is therefore IMO no excuse for presuming that a person is happy for us to interfere in their life and perform a service for them without asking them first

I agree totally with this. I would not want some random energy therapist invading my energy field trying to enforce change on me that I have not requested. The other thing is, where did this 'the receiver can block the healing' come from? If energy is applied, it will have an effect - a receiver can no more block the healing process than they can block an MRI or an ultrasound or any other form of EM field. Even Usui-sensei said "There is no need to have a consent or admiration. It doesn’t matter if you doubt, reject or deny it".

Hi Rustic

It all boils down to personal choice.

Yes, we are not dealing with science, we are dealing with consciousness which science does not understand, so we can't apply the medial science model to healing work.

If we were dealing with medical science, then yes, we could be called upon, once someone has been sectioned, to attempt to force them to receive healing when they did not want to receive it. This is how the medical profession legally rides roughshod over someone's personal choices and wishes and forces medication and treatments upon them.

At the end of the day each healer must decide for themselves if they are prepared to take personal responsibility for performing unsolicited energy healing work, where the person is unaware that potential changes are being instigated into all levels of their existence, on their behalf, by someone who believes that they have a right to interfere in their lives without their personal consent and that they know better than the healee.

Hi Omega1

The other thing is, where did this 'the receiver can block the healing' come from? If energy is applied, it will have an effect - a receiver can no more block the healing process than they can block an MRI or an ultrasound or any other form of EM field.

If we were just dealing with physical EMF then yes I would agree with you, but we are dealing with freedom of choice, I am sure that most healers have come up against a brick wall or no energy flowing when trying to help someone with healing (granted this usually happens when they have been sent for healing, rather than coming for healing out of a personal choice).

Let me see if I can outline blocking.

If a healer decides that a sick person needs to be healed, whilst the sick person has decided that they want to fully embrace and experience being sick within their existence, then whose choice will be acted upon!

Will the healers choice to heal them override and block their wish to be sick, in which case they will be healed, or will the healees choice to remain sick actually override and block the healing given by the healer which will enable them to remain sick?

Has anyone reading this, received distance healing without knowing till afterwards, and found it helpful, or didn't notice any difference at all?

What did the recipient feel about it? Was it accepted with Love and kindness at a conscious level that someone considered them with Love and kindness, or did they feel they had been the subject of an "intrusion"?