Sending distant healing - is permission needed?

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 Paul

A lot of scientists understand consciousness very well (William Tiller being one). A lot of the medical profession also understand consciousness. There are medical models that include consciousness, and it is perfectly possible for an energy healer to have a consciousness based model that respects medical science as a whole.

You have been implying in your responses to me that you believe I think I know better than a healee etc, and implied in post 25 that my beliefs mean I would give a scam treatment to appease the next of kin. :confused:

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?

However we want to dress it up, connecting with a human consciousness that is unable to give permission or make contact in the normal way (either because of having passed over, or being incapacitated) and obtaining and passing on information about their wishes and thoughts to other people, is classed as mediumship. If a healer wants to include mediumship within an energy practice, I’ve got no problems with that, provided they have been trained in mediumship, and it’s clear that they include mediumship within their working practices.

If we are not officially trained as a medium, and are not insured as a medium, IMO we can’t act in that capacity. If we are trained and insured, I think we would have to make it clear to the next of kin that we were acting as a medium to obtain the information (not an energy healer), during that part of the process, (and wouldn't we be obliged to say that part was for entertainment purposes only?;))

The potential healee has not given permission for a healer to act as their medium. There is nothing more ethical or responsible about a healer making the decision to act as the medium without permission from the healee, (or the next of kin unless the healer has made it clear at the start that what they are doing is mediumship). It is certainly no more ethical than an energy healer giving healing at the request of the next of kin until such time as the client is able to make their wishes known.

I can do it and give it a fancy title, or explain it in ways that obscure the fact that it is mediumship, but IMO unsolicited-by-the-healee-or-next-of-kin mediumship is less ethical than unsolicited-by-the healee- but-requested-by-the-next-of-kin energy work on a temporary basis. 😉

Rustic 🙂

Sorry Rustic I did not mention connecting with someones human consciousness, I was referring to their higher consciousness (energy consciousness) which is still active whilst their human consciousness might not be, thought there is plenty of evidence about to substantiate that a lot of people in comas are actually aware of what is going on around them from what they say when they reconnect and start to function again 😉

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?

I think the choice is made when the client sits or lays down on the therapists couch. Once the energy is applied, on a physical and/or emotional level the energy will have an effect. Whether the client chooses to embrace the healing effect or act in such a way as to negate or reverse the healing effect of the energy is their choice. What I believe is not their choice is what effect the energy actually has on their body's cells and chemical messages in the brain as these respond to exogenous EMF independently of the client's wishes and purely in response to the EMF.

So, in a way the client can work against the healing process, but I believe they cannot control the immediate effects of the energy.

Sorry Rustic I did not mention connecting with someones human consciousness, I was referring to their higher consciousness (energy consciousness) which is still active whilst their human consciousness might not be, thought there is plenty of evidence about to substantiate that a lot of people in comas are actually aware of what is going on around them from what they say when they reconnect and start to function again 😉

Hi Paul

So after implying I would give a scam treatment etc, you now want to imply that I've possibly never heard of people in comas potentially being aware of what is going on around them. I have, 😉 but I don't think it has a separate relevence to the mediumship point :).

To clarify - by human consciousness I mean consciousness still operating through the human vehicle, so don't worry, we have been talking about the same thing. ;).

If the healer makes a connection via any form of consciousness, (whatever anyone chooses to call it) to "ask" an incapacitated human (physically unconscious but aware or not ;)) whether the potential healee wants energy healing today or tomorrow or at all etc, and/or to pass the information on to someone else, or to act or not on it themselves, the healer is making the personal choice to act as an unsolicited-by-the potential-healee medium. If they are also doing mediumship without the express consent for mediumship by the next of kin, that is also the personal choice of the healer. But it does not give them more professional status than a healer that thinks that working like that is unethical, and professionally unwise.

Rustic 🙂

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"?

I haven't actually confirmed it with the healer, but I felt I was being sent healing by somebody who I had just informed I had a bad wrist and would struggle writing an exam, whilst in the exam.

I noticed the energy, gave thanks, and asked that it didn't disturb me during the exam. All mentally of course, exams are silent places 😉

My experience was positive, and from what I know of the person who I felt was doing the healing, she would have asked for it to only be sent for my highest good.

On the original topic, I feel it is ok ethically to offer out healing for somebody, as long as we do it with their highest good in mind and are accepting and aware that they may reject it (on whatever level of conscious) and respect that. A friend and I recently sent out healing to another friend who had previously accepted it, but hadn't asked her if we could send it at that day/time - it was spur of the moment. I was concerned that we make a point of asking that it doesn't interefere with her work(job), and she said that we could ask if it is not required or accepted that it go to mother earth instead. I thought that was a lovely idea, and it would mean that no healing went to waste 🙂

Hi Rustic

I am not having a go at you, I was responding to your post that you made, where you said that you would give healing on the instructions of the next of kin irrespective of the choice and ability of the recipient to make it known in whatever way we allow them to, that they do or do not want it or that they might well choose to reject it if they do not want it.

Now, whatever method a healer chooses to use to substantiate to themselves the validity of, if it is correct to give a healing or not, is irrelevant to the question of if we should seek permission from a healee before giving them healing.

Like all things it is down to personal choice, my personal opinion and understanding is that I would not do something irrespective of if it was healing or anything else to someone without first receiving their personal consent, whilst others think it is quite alright to do things to others without their personal consent.

People are entitled to their own opinions and understanding, but I do not have to agree with them 😉

Now, whatever method a healer chooses to use to substantiate to themselves the validity of, if it is correct to give a healing or not, is irrelevant to the question of if we should seek permission from a healee before giving them healing.

Like all things it is down to personal choice, my personal opinion and understanding is that I would not do something irrespective of if it was healing or anything else to someone without first receiving their personal consent, whilst others think it is quite alright to do things to others without their personal consent.

I am not having a go at you

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?

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?

Directed at me personally Paul, and rather unpleasantly. Just my personal opinion of course. 😉

Perhaps you could provide the supporting evidence or an explanation as to the mechanism behind how you obtain the permission in the way you do, and how you would explain the mediumship you seem to be doing to any next of kin?

Rustic 🙂

Hi Rustic

I was responding to your posts, so yes it will appear personal 😉

Perhaps you could provide the supporting evidence or an explanation as to the mechanism behind how you obtain the permission in the way you do, and how you would explain the mediumship you seem to be doing to any next of kin?

Like everyone else I would have to ask for permission to give the healing in order to receive a response, if we don't ask, then we don't know.

I would centre myself and state my intention to connect energetically with the healee like I alway do, then I would ask permission to heal them, if I received a yes or a sense of rightness if the answer came through my intuition, then I would proceed, if on the other hand I was told to clear off or got a sense of wrongness if it came through my intuition, then I would just tell it as it is to the relatives, I have asked for permission to give healing and the request has been rejected, so I can't proceed.

It is not complicated, I am sure if people think about it we are asking and receiving answers all of the time about our energy work and personal development, we also do similar things, like energetically connecting with strangers at the other side of the world, who probably do not speak our language, but we manage to function all right within the oneness as well as gain whatever insight we need to function in our healing capacity.

Hi Paul,
The danger is that you confuse your wish to do the healing with the feedback that apprear to give permission, you offer no certainty and unless there is certainty then permission has not been given - once again - no matter how responsible you call yourself you do not have the right to answer for others. confusing eh....

love

chris

Hi Chris

No, I am quite open to receiving an acceptance or rejection from a healee, I came to terms with this aspect of healing a long time ago, I have not felt that I should heal anyone for a number of years though I am available if they require healing from me, I am very happy to abide by a healees personal choices. 😉

Like everyone else I would have to ask for permission to give the healing in order to receive a response, if we don't ask, then we don't know.

I would centre myself and state my intention to connect energetically with the healee like I alway do, then I would ask permission to heal them, if I received a yes or a sense of rightness if the answer came through my intuition, then I would proceed, if on the other hand I was told to clear off or got a sense of wrongness if it came through my intuition, then I would just tell it as it is to the relatives, I have asked for permission to give healing and the request has been rejected, so I can't proceed.

It is not complicated, I am sure if people think about it we are asking and receiving answers all of the time about our energy work and personal development, we also do similar things, like energetically connecting with strangers at the other side of the world, who probably do not speak our language, but we manage to function all right within the oneness as well as gain whatever insight we need to function in our healing capacity.

If I felt a sense of wrongness it does not mean that the healee has communicated that the request has been rejected. It would mean that I felt a sense of wrongness. It could just as easily be interpreted as the healee is not in a position to make the decision, (I am wrong to ask, so it feels wrong) or any of a multitude of things. To me this isn’t working directly with consciousness, what you are describing seems to be a form of dowsing.

Whatever answer we get may well be influenced by our own belief systems and our own capabilities at the time, and in emergency cases where there is a coma patient for example, I wouldn’t think it’s the right use of the intuitive capability. I think any healer has to use common sense and the logical mind as well as the intuitive mind, and to me it’s illogical to refuse to send healing to the client at the request of the next of kin, on the basis of my interpretation of my feeling.

I also don’t think anyone could substantiate to the next of kin that they are working directly with the potential healee’s consciousness and getting answers on this basis. (I don't think they are).

Rustic 🙂

There is a simple saying about healing, 'If it feels right do it, if it doesn't then don't do it' it is a saying which has a lot of merit, intuition is our first line of information, it usually develops before our empathy and other energetic abilities.

When healing we are dealing with subtle things, where we have to learn to respond to gentle nudges and guidance both from within and without, to be able to sense a delicate shift in the energy from positive to negative, one colour to another, one state of being to another.

Our energetic senses are what we have to develop in order to work energetically, they are not infallible, we can always misinterpret what we receive or as you say place preconceived ideas into a situation, which will limit what we are prepared to receive.

But that is all we have, we can't plug someone into a computer for an energetic readout of their ethereal energy flows and blockages, when working remotely, we are often asked to send healing to this or that person, no phone number just a name and general location.

We can't talk to them physically, we have therefore to use our energetic connection through the oneness to communicate in the only way that is left to us, through the energy consciousness, now however we interpret the responses we receive, is not infallible (but nothing is), but we can make an informed choice and take responsibility for that informed choice on what we get back, we can then proceed or walk away knowing we have done the best we can to gain their consent.

There is a simple saying about healing, 'If it feels right do it, if it doesn't then don't do it' it is a saying which has a lot of merit, intuition is our first line of information, it usually develops before our empathy and other energetic abilities.

When healing we are dealing with subtle things, where we have to learn to respond to gentle nudges and guidance both from within and without, to be able to sense a delicate shift in the energy from positive to negative, one colour to another, one state of being to another.

Our energetic senses are what we have to develop in order to work energetically, they are not infallible, we can always misinterpret what we receive or as you say place preconceived ideas into a situation, which will limit what we are prepared to receive.

But that is all we have, we can't plug someone into a computer for an energetic readout of their ethereal energy flows and blockages, when working remotely, we are often asked to send healing to this or that person, no phone number just a name and general location.

We can't talk to them physically, we have therefore to use our energetic connection through the oneness to communicate in the only way that is left to us, through the energy consciousness, now however we interpret the responses we receive, is not infallible (but nothing is), but we can make an informed choice and take responsibility for that informed choice on what we get back, we can then proceed or walk away knowing we have done the best we can to gain their consent.

Hi Paul

But that (intuition) is not all we have Paul, (we have common sense and logic for a start ;)) and what you describe does nothing to gain consent or otherwise. The healer is making the decision, not the healee.

In the case of a coma patient, you seem to be saying that its OK for healers to make a decision not to send energy healing on the basis of a system that they know isn’t accurate, and where a logical conclusion is that misinterpreting the response they get could lead to a person not getting healing when they need and want it.

I don’t think an energy healer should decide whether or not to send healing to someone in a coma on the basis of one or two questions, and their own feelings. If the questions are wrong, or the answer is something other than “yes” or “no” then it is pure guesswork, and we might just as well ask the next of kin to toss a coin. 😉

With what you describe, I think the healer is not dealing directly with someone’s consciousness, the healer is using their own bodymind as a dowsing instrument to dowse the healee's subtle energy field. That is not the same at all. My understanding is that dealing directly with consciousness is a mind to mind (not brain) exercise to get the connection, and that it doesn’t involve feelings or intuition.

In dealing with the next of kin of a coma patient, the healer cannot claim that they have “asked” the prospective healee’s consciousness and they’ve said no. The healer can only claim that they have dowsed the healee's subtle energy field (because that is what you are describing) and that the answer they have got is no. (As you have had no problem with telling me I would give a scam treatment, I’m sure you won’t mind me expressing the personal opinion that I don’t think you are sufficiently knowledgeable about dowsing to make decisions to refuse healing to a coma patient based on intuition/dowsing). 😉

Even if we are able to work directly with consciousness it assumes that the healee is in a position to participate in the exchange of information at that moment, on the basis of very little information, who the healer is, etc and is able to make a reasoned choice about whether to say yes or no to the healer whilst in the face of extensive physical and energetic trauma. Then communicate their decision, possibly on the basis of one question, (do I have your permission to send healing). The likelihood of someone going through that sort of trauma and thinking nah .... no healing today..... maybe tomorrow..... is pretty minimal. The survival mechanisms built into the human bodymind also make it pretty unlikely.

The next of kin are consulted and their views noted in the medical model, and that protects our loved ones to a certain extent (not completely) from medical malpractice. In the case of the coma patient, I believe healers have to avoid the equivalent of energy healing malpractice, which means being completely honest about how we got the information not to proceed. In that way, if the next of kin think the healer is talking complete nonsense, at least they have a chance of getting a second opinion.

Rustic 🙂

Hi Rustic

Just how do you think healers work with someone using their energetic consciousness at the other side of the world, to give them healing and attunements etc! by using logic and reason?

How do we perform intuitive scans remotely, how do we receive pertinent information about someone whilst healing, so we know what they need, without talking to them?

Yes it is not infallible, they are the stock skills of a healer that need to be leaned and practised until they are both familiar and reasonably competent in their use, let us face it if we are using logic and reason, then everything we do as healers is nonsense and illogical. 🙂

Just coming into the conversation and picking up some of the earlier posts if I may... 😉

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.

Absolutely. A person giving Reiki with their hands hovering an inch above a client is no different to them giving Reiki with their hands a thousand miles away. In terms of Reiki reaching the destination, distance is not an object.

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?

Obviously, there are social standards for what is considered an intrusion so you certainly wouldn't physically accost someone in the street or break into their home, yet that doesn't stop people walking down the street and, for example, smiling at someone uninvited. That smile can be given with good intent and could 'lift the spirits' of the other person, such that they snap out of whatever thoughts or misery they were in, feel better and maybe smile back. Permission wasn't sought initially to give the smile, and not everyone will accept it, but this in itself is a form of distant healing without permission and loads of people do it every day. 🙂

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.

We don't even have to think about it. Why the need to intellectualise what we are doing so much? If our intent is to give love, happiness, healing or anything for the good of all without our ego entering into it, then it can be accepted by all who want it and rejected by those who don't.

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!!!

But if all is energy in the Universe (Oneness) then their energy is the same as your energy, but simply referred to with a different label. If their true intention is to offer their energy so you can take whatever you want, then there is no harm in it and they are not seeking anything in return. You can reject it if you like, but why reject something that is good for 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?

Interfering is surely just a perception of the individual, not the intention of the person providing? If you have a headache, I can make some paracetamol available to you, even though you may not have asked me for any. It's not my intention to force paracetamol down your throat, simply to make it available should you choose to want it. If you believe that would be interfering then that is your own issue you need to work on. 😉

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

Ah, the good ol' Law of Attraction, or more simply put.... Intention. 😉

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.

Yep, been there, seen that myself. Can't be doing with all the ritual writing names down on paper and having a special box to put them in etc. If someone wants or needs healing then the Intention to send it is enough.

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

But Chris, you have ended your post sending love to everyone reading and taking part in this thread. Nobody asked for that love to be sent to them, but you took it upon yourself to decide to send it anyway. How do you know that love is what everybody needs? I'm not complaining as we should all share love and positive intent, but I'm just pointing that out as it does somewhat conflict with your view that it lacks respect to send healing to people without their permission. Is wishing the best for someone, whatever form that takes, really showing a lack of respect?

Interesting discussion. :rolleyes:

All Love and Reiki Hugs (oops there I go giving you all Love and Reiki Hugs and I didn't even ask first!)

Yes- a very interesting discussion.
Firstly smiling at someone or interacting with them in some way is different to treating them - energetically treating them in a medical manner. The healing power of a smile (of course a smile can signal arrogance and contempt as well) is well known, but a smile is also a primitive form of greeting and acknowledgement of being part of a complex community.
This issue of express permission is at the heart of this discussion. We seem to skirt around this and have not really addressed the issue of express permission.
The use of other, less certain forms of communication is being proposed as a satisfactory answer - but it assumes that express permission in the treatment is not required - this asumtion shows only contempt and disregard for the recipient.
This lays open the possibility of someone assuming that they know what is best for you, that they have the right to interfere in your journey in a manner that they think is right - this is arrogant and destructive, it makes the whole reason why we give healing suspect and points only to serving our personal needs not those of others.
We each know how to heal and yet we all carry issues that we could heal and choose not to yet. It is not right that someone else chooses to alter this because they think it is ok. This is not their right no matter how we try to rationalise it, justify it or roll it round in layers of complexity. It renders them less than they are, and places the recipient in a position that they would not wish for themselves. Express permission is essential - it is respectful and allows the healer to engender that respect rather then assume the power over others. We are all on our own journey - but none are greater than any other, it is up to each of us to direct and choose which changes to make in our journey, not anyone else. Express permission allows and invites assistance, any other form of apparent permission is suspect and should not be attempted or assumed.

OK - so what about the challenge of 'love' at the end of my posts - interesting challenge - I like it, I know it feels right, it is about me and my attitude in joining in here, and it feels important - I'm just not sure why - but I will find out.

love
chris

Hi Giles

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?

Obviously, there are social standards for what is considered an intrusion so you certainly wouldn't physically accost someone in the street or break into their home

Do you not consider that we should apply the same considerations when working energetically as we do when working physically. Especially when we consider that the unsuspecting recipient is usually unaware that they have had changes instigated on their behalf albeit by a potentially well intentioned individual, without their consent.

What is the difference between walking up to a stranger in the street and laying your hands upon them without their consent and performing a healing session! or enter someone's house uninvited and going into their bedroom and perform healing on them whilst they are asleep, and energetically connecting with someone without their consent and laying your spiritual hands upon them and performing a healing session or energetically going into their bedroom uninvited and performing healing on them whilst they are asleep?

Nice post Chris 🙂

Yes- a very interesting discussion.
Firstly smiling at someone or interacting with them in some way is different to treating them - energetically treating them in a medical manner.

Is it? Aren't both about changing a person's energy for the better? Lifting someone's spirits with a smile (or happy conversation or anything else social-contact-wise) can make a person feel better in many ways, and with an understanding that physical issues arise from disruptions in the emotions, which are part of the energetic system, changing the energetic system of a person can make them better not just emotionally, but also physically. How many people seem to 'forget' about their physical problems when they are emotionally happy or otherwise engaged? 😉

The healing power of a smile (of course a smile can signal arrogance and contempt as well) is well known, but a smile is also a primitive form of greeting and acknowledgement of being part of a complex community.

Yes, of course a smile can mean other things, but that is where the intent matters as I was saying.

This issue of express permission is at the heart of this discussion. We seem to skirt around this and have not really addressed the issue of express permission.

Well of course, if a person is there in front of me, I would typically ask their express permission if the intent was to give them Reiki or any other treatment, but if they're not there, it's not always possible to ask them. I'm not presuming that I know that they need healing, but like the paracetamol analogy, I can make the energy available to them if they are open to accept it (on a conscious or unconscious level). There are of course times when express permission isn't required. If I hug friends, typically those who are also energy practitioners of some sort, we often give Reiki along with the hugs, without asking. It's part of sharing and intuition simply knows that only good is intended.

We could go the other way and get all beauracratical and mechanical about it, and require people to fill out forms in triplicate to sign to say they understand what it is they will be receiving etc. but if no malice is intended or indeed possible, then what would be the point. Social politeness says that we ask clients for their permission or anyone else if it's easily possible, but it's not 'necessary' and it's not arrogant or destructive to provide the 'paracetamol' in case the person wishes to take it.

The use of other, less certain forms of communication is being proposed as a satisfactory answer - but it assumes that express permission in the treatment is not required - this asumtion shows only contempt and disregard for the recipient.

If a practitioner is in contempt or having disregard for the recipient then they are not providing healing with the best of intent, or most likely they wouldn't bother providing healing in the first place. It's because we have regard for recipients and wish to make positive healing available, that we don't have contempt for them.

This lays open the possibility of someone assuming that they know what is best for you, that they have the right to interfere in your journey in a manner that they think is right - this is arrogant and destructive, it makes the whole reason why we give healing suspect and points only to serving our personal needs not those of others.

Only if that is your intent. It's perfectly possible for a practitioner to offer healing energy without seeking to serve any personal needs. I often provide healing to people and seek nothing in return. I have no need to feed the ego and seek no recognition for sending energy. Maybe instead, asking for permission is a way that people feed their ego to say, "I have something you need and you can have it if you ask for it". 😉

We each know how to heal and yet we all carry issues that we could heal and choose not to yet. It is not right that someone else chooses to alter this because they think it is ok. This is not their right no matter how we try to rationalise it, justify it or roll it round in layers of complexity. It renders them less than they are, and places the recipient in a position that they would not wish for themselves.

We're not talking physical surgery here, we're talking subtle energy. If a person is determined to not deal with certain issues, they won't regardless what someone elses energy intentions are.

Express permission is essential

But not always possible.

it is respectful and allows the healer to engender that respect rather then assume the power over others.

It's possible to respect and provide healing without assuming power over others. I get the feeling that that is your own perception of healing and certainly I wouldn't put that down as a hard and fast rule or observation of all healers.

We are all on our own journey - but none are greater than any other, it is up to each of us to direct and choose which changes to make in our journey, not anyone else.

Not sure anyone has suggested otherwise. Energy can still be provided for the person to use as they wish, if they wish.

Express permission allows and invites assistance, any other form of apparent permission is suspect and should not be attempted or assumed.

Directing energy to a person and making it available to them allows and invites assistance. They're not forced to take it on if they choose to hold onto their issues.

OK - so what about the challenge of 'love' at the end of my posts - interesting challenge - I like it, I know it feels right, it is about me and my attitude in joining in here, and it feels important - I'm just not sure why - but I will find out.

So, you are happy to send out love to everyone, because it makes you feel good about yourself. Is that not just you feeding the ego, i.e. making you feel good in yourself that you can send love to others? Or could you not just send love to everyone without a need to feel good/important etc. (No offence intended, just throwing that question out there 😉 )

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi Rustic

Just how do you think healers work with someone using their energetic consciousness at the other side of the world, to give them healing and attunements etc! by using logic and reason?

How do we perform intuitive scans remotely, how do we receive pertinent information about someone whilst healing, so we know what they need, without talking to them?

Yes it is not infallible, they are the stock skills of a healer that need to be leaned and practised until they are both familiar and reasonably competent in their use, let us face it if we are using logic and reason, then everything we do as healers is nonsense and illogical. 🙂

Hi Paul,

As a general principle, I think healers do the intuitive work, and then apply reason and logic to how to work with the results of the intuitive work. They hopefully would not accept intuitive results with blind faith, and make very important decisions based on the intuitive information alone. 😉

If we are working with someone on the other side of the world, and they have given permission themselves, and we have accepted the contract, we would not be dowsing/asking for permission to send them healing. We do not need to use logic and reason to decide whether the permission has been given. We already know it has. 😉

If we have the permission, common sense, reason and logic about that are satisfied, we can do what intuitive scans we like, obtain what information we like, what we are getting is information on the situation and how to proceed. For a potential healee in a coma, we cannot make a decision to deny healing purely on what (as one healer) our intuitive mind “feels” and then hold the next of kin ransom with psychobabble until we “feel” something different.

Energy healers have the right to refuse the case at all, which gives the next of kin the opportunity to go elsewhere. As a healer we might not want to get involved, but we are not saying something we can't substantiate in a way that might stop the next of kin seeking help from another healer.

Energy healers should not accept the contract with the next of kin, and then refuse the equivalent of energetic first aid to a comatose patient, on the basis of intuition/dowsing alone. It is illogical and unreasonable, and serves no-one but the healer. Fanciful descriptions about connecting directly with consciousness and the potential healee saying no (at all or at this moment) is unethical. Dowsing or remote scanning is not having a dialogue with a healee that can be justified as having the level of skill required to work directly with consciousness.

I don't think healers should be telling the next of kin that they have made a direct connection to the comatose client’s consciousness, and that the client has said no to healing or wants it delayed, (possibly stopping the next of kin from contacting someone else), when what they are actually doing is dowsing/scanning the energy field, and making decisions purely on the basis of their own intuitive “feelings” and hunches. Not only is that ignoring the next of kin, and ignoring logic, reason and common sense, but as a Radionic practitioner, it would be blatant malpractice.

Rustic 🙂

Hi Rustic

I am a little confused by your answer having just popped onto the radionics site to see what their thoughts are concerning the principle of a universal consciousness and how they perform distant healing and see what they feel about using (dowsing/intuition) to asses and practice healing!

link to the radionic site

I found this.

This subtle field cannot be accessed using our conventional senses. Radionic practitioners use a specialised dowsing technique to both identify the sources of weakness in the field and to select specific treatments to overcome them.

Radionics is a method of sending precisely defined healing energy to people, animals or plants, no matter where they are in the world. The name reflects the view of early practitioners that they were ‘broadcasting’ healing, but we now believe that radionic treatment occurs at a level of reality where there is no distance between us.

It is not necessary for a patient to be present for the practitioner to 'tune in' to him/her. Something unique to the patient such as a signature or hair sample may be used as a proxy, or ‘witness’. This can happen, we believe, because part of the mind of each of us is linked via a universal mind. The universal mind seems to function outside the familiar space-time framework of our day-to-day lives and that is why it does not matter where the patient and practitioner are geographically located. They can be together or many miles apart.

Sorry but I can't see anything on that site which would advocate not seeking consent from a healee before giving them healing either verbaly or through the universal mind, which I term universal consciousness! 🙂

Hi Energlyz,
As a person, a part of the complex society we live in, giving support and offering a friendly smile is part of the way in which we exit - it can be healing, but it is not energy work in the same way as a trained healer would employ. We are all experienced in the process of deciding what our response to a smile would be.
The deliberate adjustment of someones energy body, removing or changing energy links and changing their journay is a different matter. If what you are suggesting is that if you cannot get permission you will assume it is ok, then I think that this Shipmanesque attitude is very dangerous.
It does not matter how much one thinks one's intent is pure or responsible or whatever other platitudes are used to disguise the real issue, this is dangerous, both for the recipient's journey and for the sender.
Assuming that the person will reject the energy if it is not wanted is just pure deception, most people who have not learned to work with the energy would not be able to block it, they have no experience in defense, and even those who have worked with the energy can easily have their defenses breached.

Yes I try to radiate love - yes it is part of where I am now, I like it and make no apology for it. It is a form of healing, but it is not what I was trained in as a healer, that is not only many magnitudes higher but specifically targetted at adjustment of someones journey.

love
chris

Is it? Aren't both about changing a person's energy for the better? Lifting someone's spirits with a smile (or happy conversation or anything else social-contact-wise) can make a person feel better in many ways, and with an understanding that physical issues arise from disruptions in the emotions, which are part of the energetic system, changing the energetic system of a person can make them better not just emotionally, but also physically. How many people seem to 'forget' about their physical problems when they are emotionally happy or otherwise engaged? 😉

Yes, of course a smile can mean other things, but that is where the intent matters as I was saying.

Well of course, if a person is there in front of me, I would typically ask their express permission if the intent was to give them Reiki or any other treatment, but if they're not there, it's not always possible to ask them. I'm not presuming that I know that they need healing, but like the paracetamol analogy, I can make the energy available to them if they are open to accept it (on a conscious or unconscious level). There are of course times when express permission isn't required. If I hug friends, typically those who are also energy practitioners of some sort, we often give Reiki along with the hugs, without asking. It's part of sharing and intuition simply knows that only good is intended.

We could go the other way and get all beauracratical and mechanical about it, and require people to fill out forms in triplicate to sign to say they understand what it is they will be receiving etc. but if no malice is intended or indeed possible, then what would be the point. Social politeness says that we ask clients for their permission or anyone else if it's easily possible, but it's not 'necessary' and it's not arrogant or destructive to provide the 'paracetamol' in case the person wishes to take it.

If a practitioner is in contempt or having disregard for the recipient then they are not providing healing with the best of intent, or most likely they wouldn't bother providing healing in the first place. It's because we have regard for recipients and wish to make positive healing available, that we don't have contempt for them.

Only if that is your intent. It's perfectly possible for a practitioner to offer healing energy without seeking to serve any personal needs. I often provide healing to people and seek nothing in return. I have no need to feed the ego and seek no recognition for sending energy. Maybe instead, asking for permission is a way that people feed their ego to say, "I have something you need and you can have it if you ask for it". 😉

We're not talking physical surgery here, we're talking subtle energy. If a person is determined to not deal with certain issues, they won't regardless what someone elses energy intentions are.

But not always possible.

It's possible to respect and provide healing without assuming power over others. I get the feeling that that is your own perception of healing and certainly I wouldn't put that down as a hard and fast rule or observation of all healers.

Not sure anyone has suggested otherwise. Energy can still be provided for the person to use as they wish, if they wish.

Directing energy to a person and making it available to them allows and invites assistance. They're not forced to take it on if they choose to hold onto their issues.

So, you are happy to send out love to everyone, because it makes you feel good about yourself. Is that not just you feeding the ego, i.e. making you feel good in yourself that you can send love to others? Or could you not just send love to everyone without a need to feel good/important etc. (No offence intended, just throwing that question out there 😉 )

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Sorry but I can't see anything on that site which would advocate not seeking consent from a healee before giving them healing either verbaly or through the universal mind, which I term universal consciousness! 🙂

Hi Paul

Where on the website did you find that permission has to be sought via universal mind from the recipient for the practitioner to accept the case of a client in a coma?

I doubt very much that you’ve found anything to support a Radionic practitioner denying Radionic treatment to a coma patient, having taken the case from the next of kin. The quotes you give are relevant for the client who has given permission themselves in the normal way, or permission from the next of kin (if the client is incapacitated) has been accepted, to enable the practitioner to proceed. (The legal and professional responsibilities are applied before doing the intuitive work or sending healing).

“Radionic practitioners use a specialised dowsing technique to both identify the sources of weakness in the field and to select specific treatments to overcome them”.

Having been taught a specialised dowsing technique, a Radionic practitioner performs distance healing, using specialised dowsing to access information to support that practice. They identify weaknesses in the field and select treatments. The practitioner’s universal mind is accessing the universal mind of the recipient, on the basis that the permission has already been given, but they are not just scanning/dowsing energy fields and getting “feelings.” They don’t make decisions to refuse or delay treatment on the basis of a “feeling” gained as the result of one or two very poorly worded questions. If that is all it takes then anyone with a pendulum can do it, but it is pseudoscience.

If the client is in the coma, the next of kin give the permission for the practitioner to do the work. The practitioner proceeds to identify the weaknesses and select treatments. They do not sit there for a bit and “tune in” and ask the coma patient if they would like healing or not, and then delay it or refuse to do it on a feeling (or even a dowsing result), pretending to the next of kin that they’ve got a “real” informed decision from the client. We could drag anyone off the street and teach them that nonsense in an hour. It is not Radionics. And if a Radionic practitioner acted in that way, IMO it is malpractice.

Rustic 🙂

I think one of the problems here is another common misunderstanding that healers only make the energy available for someone when performing healing, and what they do can only do good because that is what they intend.

Unfortunately healing is like everything else. Once something moves beyond the intention stage into an active stage then things are starting to happen. The only thing that will stop them happening is if the person who is receiving the healing rejects it as it does not fit their purpose. That is assuming they are aware that healing work is making changes in and around them; or the healer cancels the work that they have instigated, because they are open and sensitive enough to acknowledge the warning signs which are presented to them.

As for only doing good, then that is also open to who is defining the doing good. Now with distance work, unless a healer can use their consciousness to receive the information which will point them in the right direction, then they are working blind. They must assume, as well as take full responsibility for the belief that they know better than the healee does, that they know what the healee needs and what is good for them and then perform the healing which will be acted upon.

I think we all know the saying that one man's meat is another man's poison and if you play with fire you will get burnt, unfortunately when people play with healing it is not them who will get burnt, it is the unsuspecting healee.

Healing is not just pushing energy from one place to another as that is just the tip of the iceberg. It is about making transformational changes to someone's reality, the changing of things from one's state of being or reality into another state of being or reality, it is something which should be applied with respect, understanding and caution at all times.

Hi Rustic

I can't answer for what the radionics society thinks on this mater, we have our own code of ethics which states "To work in an appropriate manner in accordance with the requirements of each session, with the consent of the recipient."

So, to not gain the consent of the healee by any means available to them, which would include verbal or to use the scientific term ESP or energy consciousness as we term it, or to go against the wishes of the healee in any situation would be deemed inappropriate behaviour.

Why don't you put these questions to the radionics society for their deliberations!

The question under debate here is.

Should a healer or a Radionics practitioner in your case, give healing or distance healing to someone without first seeking consent from them in whatever manner is available to you?

Then there is your separate question.

If a radionics practitioner is approached by some relatives to perform healing on a person in a coma, who makes their wishes known through the universal mind/consciousness that they do not wish to receive it, should you still proceed with the healing or not?

The only thing that will stop them happening is if the person who is receiving the healing rejects it as it does not fit their purpose.

Hi Paul

That statement is contradicted by science. Where is the evidence?

As for only doing good, then that is also open to who is defining the doing good. Now with distance work, unless a healer can use their consciousness to receive the information which will point them in the right direction, then they are working blind. They must assume, as well as take full responsibility for the belief that they know better than the healee does, that they know what the healee needs and what is good for them and then perform the healing which will be acted upon.

With distance work, if we use our consciousness to receive information, we are not working blind. We are receiving additional information to add to what we have gained by conventional means. We take all factors into account to send the healing. When the healee in a coma is able to make the decision themselves, the healee can decide whether the next of kin’s decision to employ the services of a healer was the right thing to do. The healee decides when they are able to, not asked to make a decision when they are not able to.

The healer is not claiming to know better than the healee. That is a belief system that only serves healers who want to make out that they are cleverer or more ethical than healers who choose not to believe that. It does nothing to serve the healee, or the next of kin, or the practice of healing.

I think we all know the saying that one man's meat is another man's poison and if you play with fire you will get burnt, unfortunately when people play with healing it is not them who will get burnt, it is the unsuspecting healee.

That is the reason why most people in the position of being in a coma would like their next of kin to be consulted, act as observers, and if necessary provide permission for treatment/healing be given on a temporary basis.

Is it not better to survive and complain to our relatives when we have recovered sufficiently that we didn’t want them initiating that particular service, (and tell them next time don't do that) or is it more ethical to let us pass over having been denied treatment we would have willingly accepted, when our relatives may well have been duped into accepting well intentioned pseudoscience as truth?

Which is the higher risk to the unsuspecting healee? Unless we can provide evidence that the healee has refused healing, that would stand up to public professional scrutiny, ethically we cannot accept cases where the client is not able to give permission in the normally accepted manner.

It is about making transformational changes to someone's reality, the changing of things from one's state of being or reality into another state of being or reality, it is something which should be applied with respect, understanding and caution at all times.

Respect, understanding, caution and knowledge and professional boundaries, which includes our conttracual obligations when dealing with the next of kin. The rest is just clever sounding words, that used at the wrong time, or in the wrong context, are potentially dangerous to the healee. 😉

Rustic 🙂

Hi Rustic

The post you have responded to was not about the question of a coma healee who can't use their brain to respond on a physical level to questions, it was a general observation about the frequently used comment that healers just send energy, which seems to imply that it is therefore not important enough to warrant asking for permission before activating. 🙂

Have you managed to get a reply to the questions from the Radionics society yet?

Have you managed to get a reply to the questions from the Radionics society yet?

Why would I want to ask the Radionic Association anything? Its not me who wants to know what they think. 😉

Rustic 🙂

I can't answer for what the radionics society thinks on this mater, we have our own code of ethics which states "To work in an appropriate manner in accordance with the requirements of each session, with the consent of the recipient."

So, to not gain the consent of the healee by any means available to them, which would include verbal or to use the scientific term ESP or energy consciousness as we term it, or to go against the wishes of the healee in any situation would be deemed inappropriate behaviour.

If you initiate a session at the request of the next of kin, then unless you can provide scientific data/evidence that you can directly obtain permission for or refusal of the healing from the recipient currently in a coma, or other evidence that would stand up in a professional hearing/court in the event of a complaint by the recipient at a later date, IMO your own code of ethics restricts you to working with clients that can give consent in the usual way.

Would you not be in breach of your own code of ethics by accepting a commission from anyone other than the recipient? The recipient has not given you permission to initiate the contact with them through universal consciousness, (they have not wished it of you) you have no right to request them to make any potentially life changing (or life ending) decision about refusing healing without acquainting them with full details of who you are and what services you offer to allow them to give informed consent whilst they are in a coma, so i don't think you can start to work in an appropriate manner in accordance with the requirements of the session. IMO there can be no session. 😉

Rustic 🙂

Hi Rustic

Just to clarify, my code of ethics states: that members will not attempt to use this modality to assist someone who does not wish to receive it, irrespective of a third parties request.

We are obviously not going to agree on this point, but as I said earlier it is down to personal choices and responsibilities, unless a governing body decrees otherwise 🙂

Hi Rustic

Just to clarify, my code of ethics states: that members will not attempt to use this modality to assist someone who does not wish to receive it, irrespective of a third parties request.

Professionally therefore, because a member's decisions are made irrespective of the request of the third party, the member cannot attempt to use the modality for a person in a coma (or even a small child etc).

If the member makes the decision that a potential healee in a coma has not given the next of kin permission to request the healing on their behalf, the member also cannot make contact with the potential healee. If they don't have permission to make contact, they cannot offer to use the modality. If the member won't accept the third party request to give healing, the member cannot accept any third party request to make contact.

No session then. 😉

Rustic 🙂