zone therapy following a road traffic accident, and subsequently pursued a career in reflex zone therapy by undertaking training with many European practitioners.In1979 she trained with Hanne Marquardt in Germany, and in1981was asked to develop the British School of Reflex Zone Therapy at the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in London. Shortly after this, she and Ms.Marquardt established schools of reflex zone therapy in Israel and Barcelona.Her book Reflex ZoneTherapy for Health Professionals, published in 2000 by Churchill
Livingstone (ISBN 0 443 060150), is the culmination of 23 years of expertise in reflex zone
therapy, and 47 years of nursing experience. She is presently Principle, British School --Reflex Zone Therapy of the Feet, Wembley Park,UK.
In this interview, Ann discusses the scope and limitations of reflexology and how she sees this profession developing in the future.
Q. Anne, we are keen to explore your views of the scope and limitations of reflexology with particular reference to diagnosis.
A. The statement that reflexology can be used to make a diagnosis is untrue and not to be
found in any published text. Since reflexologists claim to treat their clients holistically, rather than treating a named disease or syndrome, it is surprising to hear claims of being able to make a specific
diagnosis.
Q. In your view, what can reflexology not do?
A. Let me take you through some of the published literature on reflexology. In 1917
Zone Therapy was published by Fitzgerald and Bowers (Fitzgerald & Bowers 1917).
Fitzgerald argued that ‘pressure applied upon the zones corresponding to the location of the injury will tend to relieve pain and if pressure is applied for long enough it can produce an analgesia or insensibility to pain’. But they noted that this is of course not an infallible or inevitable result.
Marquardt’s book Reflex Zone Therapy of the Feet in 1983 (Marquardt 1983) was a major contribution to the subject. She claimed that abnormal reflex zones should not be interpreted as indicating disease, nor provide a basis for making an ‘interesting diagnosis’. Diagnosis is the prerogative of the doctor. When a doctor is familiar with this method he will certainly take into account diagnostic indications arising from abnormal zones on the feet and may use these to assist in drawing up a differential diagnosis. However, she argued that there was often a great temptation to lay too much emphasis on the
abnormal reflex zone found, particularly when the patient asks what this or that painful area signifies. I agree with Marquardt when she says that a good practitioner, whose sole interest is the patient’s progress, will only allude to the possibility of malfunction of organs or systems in that zone, and not declare the presence of specific disease. The therapist will not therefore ‘create
anxiety or a neurotic response in a patient who has a hypochondriacal tendency’.
In my latest book, Reflex Zone Therapy for Health Professionals (Lett 2000) I again emphasize that it is important to remember that assessment is not a diagnostic tool except in the hands of someone who has been trained to make a diagnosis. I emphasize that ‘it must be reiterated that a medical diagnosis cannot be made on the feet, except by a doctor’ (Lett 2000, p. 75). This, I feel, is very important.
The following report was published back in 2014, imagine if this distinction ever went through and there association flourished and prospered. Reflexology in the UK might not have been the same.
Report on a membership audit of the Association of Chartered
Physiotherapists in Reflex Therapy (ACPIRT)
A distinction between Reflex Therapy and reflexology was proposed at the inception of ACPIRT. It was suggested that as an allied medical professional, upon whom there is an obligation of diagnosis and outcome measurement, a physiotherapist practices Reflex Therapy rather than reflexology. Yet, the audit showed that ACPIRT members do not universally support this distinction and many refer to themselves as physiotherapists practicing reflexology. Findings from the audit suggest that a distinction may, indeed, be valid and findings are presented in Table 1.
