Regardless the explanation, if you are uncomfortable treating people with cancer, there is no reason why you have to do so. It’s okay to limit your practice to situations that are comfortable for you.

Again, I suggest going back to the original post. Reiki treatment is balancing to the system overall. When there is a new organ in the body, that becomes part of the overall system. So you could say that Reiki helps to harmonize the new element into the recipient’s system, as well as balance the side effects of the anti-rejection drugs. There is nothing involved in Reiki treatment that can interact with the drugs themselves (because there is no substance ingested) or that overrides the body’s wisdom.

Similarly, how would Reiki treatment affect the electrical signals in a pacemaker? Reiki treatment does not involve electricity. Rather, it helps to balance the human system into which the pacemaker has been inserted.

Diabetics who are insulin-dependent check their blood sugar levels regularly because many things affect the amount of sugar in their blood and it has to be kept within certain parameters. The balancing effects of Reiki treatment can definitely affect blood sugar levels, which are being constantly monitored anyway. In my professional practice, every person with diabetes I have treated or trained to practice has told me he/she needed less medication. For some, the change has been quite dramatic. But addressing this type of diabetes involves constant monitoring anyway, and needing less medication is seen as a good thing, not a danger.

It’s important to realize that Reiki treatment can affect blood sugar levels not because it in any way interacts with the medications, but because the system is experiencing a more balance state, which affects hormonal secretion and blood chemistry, moving them toward a health.

1. People who have had an organ transplant as Reiki can affect the anti-rejection drugs that they take.

2. People who have had a pacemaker fitted as Reiki can affect the electrical signals.

3. People who are insulin-dependent diabetics as Reiki can affect the blood-sugar levels.

Janice

If you stop and think it through, isn’t your question answered in the original post? What specifically is your concern? What is involved in a Reiki treatment that could be harmful to a pregnant woman and developing fetus?

And what kind of proof are you looking for? In my book, I mention a small study done by Cheri Herrmann, RN, on the OB floor of NY Presbyterian Medical Center in Queens. Magnesium sulfate IV is the standard care given pregnant women admitted to the hospital with either early labor or preeclampsia.

The women receiving this needed treatment often complain of a range of side effects, including headache, lethargy, and visual disturbances. In this study, the women who received Reiki treatment as well as the magnesium sulfate reported significant reduction in a number of symptoms, including headache, exhaustion, feeling emotionally drained, and various visual discomforts.

Reiki treatment would not have been offered in this hospital-based research project if there were any concern about safety. The point of the research was to see if Reiki treatment added to standard care might improve the patient’s experience, which it did.

What the practitioner needs to keep in mind when offering Reiki treatment to a pregnant woman is her comfort. For example, after a certain point, it is no longer feasible for a pregnant woman to lie on her back, and pregnant women lying on their side are often more comfortable with a roll between their thighs/knees.

The concerns about the safety of Reiki treatment itself in any situation stem from a basic misconception of what is happening during the treatment. Reiki is not an intervention that targets specific conditions and symptoms even at the cost of unbalancing the overall system, thus risking side effects. Rather, Reiki treatment is balancing to the entire system. This enhanced balance enables the person’s own self-healing mechanisms to make adjustments organically, from within, rather than imposing changes from outside (thereby risking side effects).

Make sense?

Many thanks,
Eileen