Osteopathy In The Cranial Field Magoun Pdf 31
Template:SplitsectionsTemplate:NPOVCraniosacral therapy (also called CST, cranial osteopathy, also spelled CranioSacral bodywork or therapy) is a method of Complementary and alternative medicine used by massage therapists, naturopaths, chiropractors, osteopaths, physical therapists, nurses, dentists, and doctors who manually apply a subtle movement of the spinal and cranial bones to bring the central nervous system into harmony. This therapy involves assessing and addressing the movement of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which can be restricted by trauma to the body, such as through falls, accidents, and general nervous tension. By gently working with the spine, the skull and its cranial sutures, diaphragms, and fascia, the restrictions of nerve passages are eased, the movement of CSF through the spinal cord can be optimized, and misaligned bones can be restored to their proper position. This therapy is said to be particularly useful for mental stress, neck and back pain, migraines, TMJ Syndrome, and for chronic pain conditions such as fibromyalgia.
osteopathy in the cranial field magoun pdf 31
Template:Osteopathic medicineCranial Osteopathy was originated by physician William Sutherland, D.O. (1873-1954), who studied under the founder of osteopathy, Andrew Taylor Still, at the first American School of Osteopathy (now Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine) in 1898-1900. While looking at a disarticulated skull, Sutherland was struck by the idea that the cranial sutures of the temporal bones where they meet the parietal bones were "beveled, like the gills of a fish, indicating articular mobility for a respiratory mechanism."The idea that the bones of the skull could move was contrary to contemporary anatomical belief. Sutherland spent many years attempting to disprove his theory, but research on himself and on his patients led him to conclude that the bones of the skull do move along their sutures, and any hindrance in movement may be associated with a dysfunction.
In the 1940s the American School of Osteopathy started a post-graduate course called 'Osteopathy in the Cranial Field' directed by Sutherland, and was followed by other schools. This new branch of practice became known as "cranial osteopathy". As knowledge of this form of treatment began to spread, Sutherland trained more teachers to meet the demand, notably Drs Viola Frymann, Edna Lay, Howard Lippincott, Anne Wales, Chester Handy and Rollin Becker.
Upledger developed his own treatment style, and when he started to teach his work to a group of students who were not osteopaths he generated the term 'CranioSacral therapy', based on the corresponding movement between cranium and sacrum. Craniosacral therapists often (although not exclusively) work more directly with the emotional and psychological aspects of the patient than osteopaths working in the cranial field. The Upledger Institute, formed in 1987, has many international affiliatesunited by Upledger's International Association of Healthcare Practitioners.
It appears from a review of past letters by. Hartman  and Norton  that they are making a concerted effort to gain some recognition for their premise by questioning the efficacy of cranial osteopathy or cranial therapeutic care. One way they have chosen to elicit a response has been by making far overreaching statements, which are ironic since Hartman thinly veils himself in a gossamer cloak of science, research, and evidence-based healthcare. While it is common for researchers to have preferences and exhibit a bias we will note that our preference is for an open-minded dialogue of the risk/benefit ratio of a treatment, its biological plausibility, and its evidence base, which includes case histories, observational studies, and the depth of papers published over the years. To pick an isolated diagnostic procedure or treatment, such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pulsation palpation, question its reliability and validity, and then use this fractional aspect of a method of care to condemn it all, is something that really should not have graced the electronic pages of this journal. What can be said by Norton and Hartman , and fairly so, is that from their review of selected studies regarding CSF palpation as discussed in cranial therapeutic care, further study to investigate its validity and reliability is warranted and this component of cranial diagnosis should not be used as a sole criteria for cranial diagnosis or treatment.
Frankly, we are reluctant to accept at face value the reasons that so many practitioners give for disregarding such plainly negative findings on reliability. As we also said earlier [5(p31)]: "given that this one presumed biomedical parameter of cranial osteopathy has been the nearly unanimous choice for reliability testing and has failed utterly, we are suspicious of practitioners who now claim that this parameter was a poor selection because of its minimal clinical value."
Over many centuries, valueless medical techniques beyond number have won the passionate allegiance of innumerable patients and practitioners. An example probably known to all in the medical field is bloodletting. Based on a number of successive, misguided "biological" foundations (e.g., release of evil spirits or balance of the four humors), the procedure was practiced with passion and confidence, in various ways, in a wide range of clinical situations, over several millennia. Now, of course (at least, in the developed world), we make little medical use of evil spirits and know that, through bloodletting, many more patients must have been killed than cured. Drs. B and C probably are as familiar with the history of medicine as we are but, apparently based on their perception of clinical success, they seem willing to judge recent (yet to be validated) "cranial" mechanistic hypotheses more optimistically than we can.
Dr. Norton and I have concluded that cranial osteopathy is a "textbook example" of a pseudoscience. Practitioners cannot feel good when they read this but we believe it is the truth of the matter, we believe practitioners must come to grips with it, and recent reliance on quantum mechanics and energy fields does not represent progress. Now, of course, paraphrasing Carl Sagan : "We may be wrong." Perhaps one day we will see replicated, convincing demonstrations of efficacy. If we were practitioners, this is where we would put our time: by establishing that some form of cranial treatment really does provide a direct clinical effect, it becomes much easier to justify search for a mechanism or study of reliability. In the meantime, it seems obvious that Drs. B and C have reached different conclusions than Dr. Norton and I. Therefore, in case we have missed something . . .