A response to Dawson’s critical analysis of ‘spirituality as “integrative energy”’

A response to Dawson’s critical analysis of ‘spirituality as “integrative energy”’ Dawson’s reply to ‘spirituality as integrative energy’, particularly his objection to the appropriation of energy as a conceptual descriptor, demonstrates a woefully inaccurate and grossly misleading interpretation of my work. The purpose of this response is to challenge Dawson’s assertion that such reformulation effectively strips spirituality of its historical meaning and to provide evidence of its appropriateness. I briefly consider the precepts underlying holism as a moral imperative for professional nursing, the traditional role of spirituality in health and illness, the rise of medical science and its eventual disjunction from metaphysics, and the his torical evolution of nursing. I also comment on the privileged nature of the nurse–client relationship and the social and moral obligation of nurses to engage in holistic practice. Finally, I suggest that the reconceptualization of spirituality as ‘integrative energy’ represents its dynamic, unifying nature and reassert my contention that ‘integrative energy’ is an entirely appropriate and eminently suitable definition of spirituality.