Madam, - Dr Áine Tubridy raises some interesting issues and questions in her letter of March 1st.
I note that she continues to defend her support for the work of Walter Makichen, including "his clairvoyant ability to facilitate individuals becoming parents". Claims of clairvoyant ability have been extensively investigated for more than a century and a half. There is no evidence to support their existence except in people's imaginations.
Couples who attend Makichen with fertility problems and conceive subsequently are in all likelihood receiving mainstream treatments which account for any pregnancies. These are most certainly not due to Makichen telepathically calling in spirit babies at the behest of Jesus, as he claims in his book. Tubridy here confuses correlation with causation, a common logical error.
Further confusion is evident when she posits questions concerning the existence of X-rays, gravity, etc, before these were described scientifically. Of course they existed before being named. The role of science is to investigate and elucidate natural phenomena, which it does exceptionally well. It has demonstrated the properties of X-rays and gravity, but has found no trace of clairvoyant ability.
In science, when data are not forthcoming in support of a theory, or when contradictory data are consistently delivered, the theory is abandoned. Many alternative practitioners cling to their suppositions despite a consistent lack of objective support and in the face of significant contradictory evidence.
Her suggestion that there will always be those who react with fear in the face of the unknown does not apply to those who practice science. The opposite is clearly the case. Scientific researchers face the unknown on a daily basis, often with exceptional courage, with the goal of finding out more about the world and its wonders. These activities define science and account for its progress.
Clinging to superstition and esoteric, discredited phenomena such as clairvoyance serves only to ensnare us in the past, when fear, pain, poverty and premature death were commonplace. Scientists and mystics, despite Dr Tubridy's suggestions to the contrary, very rarely read off the same hymn-sheet.
Findings from quantum physics, while often vigorously debated, are a constituent part of mainstream science and, despite pleas to the contrary, lend no support whatever to esoteric mysticism.
I am greatly concerned that Dr Tubridy sees it "as eminently logical" to use methods that she has seen work, provided they do no harm. As there is no objective evidence to support such interventions, the only indication that they "work" must come from patients who claim they feel better following such treatments. This is a flawed basis on which to judge efficacy.
A patient with terminal cancer, if told by a doctor that she or he can eradicate her disease by thinking about it, or a couple who are told that their fertility issues can be resolved by communicating with spirit babies may feel better. However, in reality, neither cancer nor fertility problems will be influenced in this way.
In such cases, the end (feeling better) does not justify the means. And patients may well experience significant psychological distress upon realising that they have been misinformed.
Dr Tubridy says that "there is a mocking tone" in my "reference to the spiritual dimension and those who draw on it". This is a misinterpretation on her part. I have every respect for the rights of people to subscribe to whatever spiritual beliefs they choose.
My difficulties arise from the claims of some that, on the basis of their belief systems, they can effectively and systematically treat serious and significant illnesses and distress. They cannot. Mystical ministry, while it may be important to those receiving it and may provide comfort, does not constitute, nor substitute for, medicine. - Yours, etc,
PAUL O'DONOGHUE, Principal Clinical Psychologist, Woodleigh Elm, Dublin 6.