Just read the column on whether prayer is beneficial in healing. As a resident and an agnostic, I doubt that the power of prayer is as strong as its most vocal advocates would claim. Nevertheless, the reports in the Skeptical Inquirer, et al, that show no statistical effect also seem to be flawed. These days a lot of emphasis is placed on fostering a sense of well being in the patient; if you had a severe or terminal condition “quality of life” issues are important and quantifiable despite being subjective. Objective measures such as hospital stay lengths, etc. were not changed. This hardly disproves a positive benefit to performing an action that provides comfort. Few things in medicine have been subject to the double blind trial which is held in such high esteem; such a trial in this case would likely have to many variables or too few participants (hence insufficient statistical power) to do. The fact that God may change the outcome may not be relevant in testing the hypothesis “is prayer helpful in sick people”. Cancer also changes the outcome of events. Finally, the placebo effect is real and powerful. It is only in recent years that the effect was widely admitted, though I suspect that it was well known during ancient times and used by physicians (at times when they must have thought to themselves they were dealing with something beyond their experience). Don’t belittle the placebo effect. Some good research has shown a strong link between depression and ischemic heart disease. There may be more in Heaven and Earth then is dreamt of in your philosophy. Though I wouldn’t throw away your crutches.
Welcome to the SDMB, Dr_Paprika. It’s customary to include a link to the Staff Report in the first post of a thread about it, so people can easily look at what your commenting on. Here’s the link: Have studies proven that prayer can help heal the sick? Don’t worry about it, it takes all of us a while to get used to that rule. But it does make things easier.
I think David has plenty of respect for the placebo effect, since it is the proper explanation in most apparent successes of screwball medicine and faith healing. The point of the article is not to say that there is no benefit in letting a patient gain comfort from prayer or from the knowledge that others are praying for them, since it says at several points that these things do help faithful patients.
What the Staff Report is arguing against is the idea that prayer helps patients when they are not aware of it. That would eliminate the placebo effect as an explanation, and would lend support to the idea that the prayer alone has some healing ability. The only way to prove such a connection would be through a double-blind study, and no valid study of that type has yet been conducted.
In other words, if the placebo effect is allowed into play at all, no one can say they’ve proven the power of prayer.
I strongly suspect people unaware of praying on their behalf have no measurable benefit. And God knows I have little inclination to read the original claims of the religious mafia. But while some of the articles in the Skeptical Inquirer are excellent, all of them share a smug, holier-than-thou tone regardless of how well they challenge a specific belief. I see no reason not to comment on this article just because I haven’t read it yet. And I agree that no won has proven the power of prayer in this manner. What I am saying is that the study done by Matthews and Conti et al seems to have some severe flaws as well, which they may admit. The fact the endpoint objectives measured by the researchers did not change does not deny a subjective benefit; I’m certainly not saying anyone has proved one in this way. If the benefit is real, huge numbers of people would still be needed to achieve statistical significance. I do not agree a double blind trial is the only way to prove a benefit to prayer. David states “to date there has not been a single good study showing that prayer has any value for sick people”, and that “some studies have shown that people who pray on their own behalf… have an improvement in their health”. These benefits are explained away by invoking the placebo effect, and assumes the placebo effect must account for all of these differences. This may be true, and I suspect it is, but this is hardly a given regardless of how often it is used to discredit “traditional” medicine. I doubt that the study of Matthews and Conti does much to show that intercessional prayer is of no benefit. I suspect that they share my belief it does not. That does not mean that the study was well conducted, or that any benefit of unconventional therapy should be assumed “placebo”, or that double blind trials are the only form of proof (as suggested). Any medical study needs to be interpreted practically. The provider must ask “were the patients studied similar to mine and will the answer affect how I treat them?” In this case, it does not, since there is little reason for patients with cancer to be unaware that someone is praying on their behalf, although this makes proving a benefit to intercession much easier. I don’t believe the hype, but before being too smug I suggest no good studies have been done on either side of this argument. I will read the original, it is entirely possible David is not reporting everything the article said for the sake of brevity. People who respect the placebo effect, though, don’t say “just the placebo effect”. Sometimes you take what you can. I see lots of patients who tell me about their supplements. If they cause no harm, and prayer surely causes no harm if the person is unaware of the “burden of hope”, what is the problem? No less an authority than population health guru Chanaraks P. Shah has shown immense health benefits to spirituality regardless of the specifics.
The “placebo effect” is certainly an indication that the human brain can accomplish some pretty amazing things. The point of the placebo effect is that it works – Dumbo’s feather. So it should certainly not be stuck in the basement as “just” the placebo effect. It certainly needs to be studied.
My concern is always: skeptic that I am, that could mean that I am depriving myself of a possible healing solution at some future date, because I don’t “believe.”
To some extent there is truth in the old gag that “I’ve heard it it works even if you don’t believe in it.” David’s mailbag article on the nocebo effect goes into this curious business. Unfortunately it doesn’t mention the healing power of bad puns which you seem to think so crucial to these Boards’ health CKDextHavn.
Sorry, but this isn’t something you can study and quantify. I don’t mean to represent faith as being irrational, but in this case, it is silly to try to test the variable in question. I will explain why.
If you want to test “do certain doses of chemical X improve the conditions of patients with ailment A,” the chemical is totally indiscriminate about what it does. It is not intellligent, and it doesn’t know what you’re doing with it.
When you’re asking an allegedly omniscient being to intervene on someone’s behalf, it’s not as though said being can be expected to act like a chemical; a being with intelligence and will and motivation may choose, for whatever reasons, to act in some situations and not in others. Old Testament sources sometimes seem to suggest that a person’s righteousness can be of relevance; the Psalmist often pleads for God to hear his cause based on his “blamelessness.” But there are also plenty references to God having His own agenda independant of man; things like “my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.” In the New Testament, with illustrations like the mustard seed, Jesus taught that our faith had something to do with whether God answers our prayers. James also says something to this effect in chapter 1 of his book when discussing our pleas to God for wisdom.
Taking all this and trying to put it in a lab, where a scientist prays a prayer and marks down results, amounts to pretending that the Being prayed to has no concern either way, but acts like a chemical or treatment, just an intermediate step in a chain of cause and effect. This is not belief in God, but in magic. Magic is a force to be weilded by humans; the God of Judeo-Christian tradition is not a mechanical request-granter, but the ruler of everything. Trying to test such a thing in a study and quantify the results amounts to denying all the claims made about His character and attributes. In trying to test Him, you deny the existance of such a God.
One reason why skeptics have been so emphatic in questioning these studies is out of fear of statements like this one:
“[A]s a Christian and a physician, I now actively seek to appreciate the spiritual life of every patient and prescribe prayer as part of each treatment regimen.” – “A Practice of Prayer” by Delvyn C. Case, Jr., M.D. (from one of Focus on the Famiy’s websites.)
I trust no decent doctor would try to discourage a patient from adopting whatever religious practices that patient wished, unless it was something which would actually be directly harmful to their health. And I don’t really think a good time to start up a friendly conversation about the fallacies of theistic belief and belief in the afterlife is right after you just told someone, as their physician, that they have cancer. But, when I get sick I expect any possibly God-fearing physicians who are treating me to return the favor and not start badgering me to abandon my convictions and let Jesus into my heart along with that triple bypass. I’m afraid studies like these, uncritically repeated, just give ammunition to the annoying (and sometimes downright scary) pushy evangelical Christians among us.
There’s also a danger that medicine going off on some kind of prayer jag will add to the unfortunate tendency we sometimes see these days to “blame the victim” in cases of serious illness. There are a number of ways in which we’ve come to realize that people are responsible for their own health, including such unimpeachable ideas as getting enough exercise and not smoking. Maintaining a “positive attitude” may even have a real effect on one’s health. But the fact is plenty of sunny, positive, optimistic, and for that matter God-fearing people die young or suffer all sorts of misfortunes. I don’t want to get to the point where every time an atheist dies people say “Oh well, he was such a nasty grumpy old unspiritual cynic, he probably gave himself cancer.”
<< This is not belief in God, but in magic. >>
Yes, of course. When Staff first got this topic, there was considerable debate, and I raised the point you did – among others – that the whole thing is inherently silly.
Staff David chose, and rightly I think, NOT to question to underlying theology (or lack of theology) or ultimate untestability of the question, but just to deal with it on its own terms. If people are claiming that such studies are valid, then a challenge at the philosophic level will not be dissuasive – such philosophic challenge would be that such studies can NEVER be valid since: if God doesn’t exist, the underlying principle is inherently flawed; and if God does exist, the underlying principle implies human control over God (“magic”).
Thus, David’s challenge was primalily directed at the results, which are no different than any other placebo effect. He does spend some time in the last few paragraphs discussing the inherent implausibility of such a test in any case.
Dr_Paprika said:
Um… Most people would indeed hold comment on something they haven’t read. And much of the rest of your article talks about things you haven’t read. Add into this your claim that “all” of the Skeptical Inquirer articles share a certain tone and, well, I’m having a hard time taking you seriously.
My reply was to your summary of the article, which I did read. If you reported what was in the article, it should not matter that I have not read the original. You do not respond to my points, and if this is because you choose not to take them seriously, that is not my fault. All articles in the skeptical inquirer share a skeptical tone, obviously. I think anyone who has read this journal would agree that the zeal for skeptism is not always backed up by the same credibility of research.
Are you saying then that praying for a sick person is an attempt to influence God’s agenda, and is, of course, a useless attempt, since God’s motives are beyound our comprehension?
Yes, “doc,” the articles generally share a skeptical tone. But that isn’t what you said, is it? No. You said:
So, are you withdrawing your “all” comment?
I personally find the brand of skepticism used in the Skeptical Enquirer to be quite smug and self-righteous, and I think these are components of the very nature of skepticism. My comment may be slightly harsh, but not so much I would want to withdraw it. Being smug and self-righteous myself, this may explain why I like the Skeptical Inquirer.
I have since read the article. Having moved to work in Spittletown, it took time for me to recieve a reprint. The small libraries here do not have the Skeptical Inquirer. I used to read it during study breaks in medical school; over four years I daresay I worked my way through most of the back issues.
Some of the articles are fantastic. I thought their put-down of homeopathy some years ago, for example, was excellent. But not all articles are of the same quality, and I think Matthews and Conti’s informal experiment leaves a lot to be desired.
I think we agree that the idea of prayers helping people unaware of them is very unlikely. I think we agree having a physician trying to foist her or his religious views on a patient is insulting. I doubt you have bothered to read the original sources of all of the claims made by the religious regarding the benefits of intercessional prayer. I certainly have not, and would regard it as a waste of my time. Commenting on a summary of these ideas is perfectly valid, as is my commenting on your summary of an article without having read it. Medical people comment on abstracts all the time without reading articles of low yield.
I disagree that the article does too much to discredit the idea of intercessional prayer because the sample size is too small to demonstrate a benefit if this benefit is small. I also disagree with your assumptions that a double blind trial is the only way to prove something. I think it is dangerous to disregard new therapies in general which do show benefit by assuming without proof such benefits are due to a placebo effect. I think we do agree that the burden of an effective proof of intercessional prayer is on those who think it works, who have squat.
I see a lot of people with terminal diseases. No one wants to give them “false hope” and tell them feeling good will make them better and have them blaming themselves when things go bad for not being able to muster enough positive energy. But the reality is that intercessional prayer surely does no harm, and the reality is there is no reason in practice for patients to be unaware someone is praying on their behalf. If it makes both the patients and the prayers feel better, this is a benefit even if mortality is not reduced. Many of our favorite heart atttack drugs, e.g. digoxin improve quality of life without reducing mortality or even hospital visits. Subjective benefits count too.
Dr_P said:
You seem to be missing the point, so let me spell it out. It’s not just “slightly harsh,” but simply incorrect. Even if most of the articles could be described as you did (and I would disagree with that), it is still incorrect to say that all of them are.
Now, on with the rest of your post: Which article, exactly, did you read? You say you read the Skeptical Inquirer but then talk about Matthews and Conti, who co-wrote the Skeptic article and had nothing to do with the Skeptical Inquirer. Furthermore, the experiment I mentioned is only briefly discussed in their Skeptic article, but has been submitted for publication elsewhere, so I’m unsure as to how you know their experiment leaves a lot to be desired.
All in all, you’ll forgive me for being, ahem, skeptical and wondering just what you did read?
FWIW, Canadian Press reported, about a month ago, on a new University of Saskatchewan study that reportedly found that depression patients who prayed, were church goers, got better faster than those who weren’t particularly religious.
I’ll have a look for a link. The wire story I found was pretty small.
The original article was dealing with intercessory prayer; in other words, can praying for someone else help speed their recovery? Since doing anything to a patient–even giving them a sugar pill or sticking them with a needle full of saline solution–can help via the placebo effect, the studies have tried to find out if praying for patients can help them if the patients don’t know they’re being prayed for. The study you’re talking about sounds more like it would have a bearing on the psychological and medical effects of being religious, which is a whole other topic in and of itself.
What alternative method of testing medical procedures would you like to use?
This may have been mentioned earlier, but has anyone done a study in which:
[ol]
[li]Some patients are told they will be prayed for by someone else, and really are.[/li][li]Some patients are told they won’t be prayed for, and really aren’t.[/li][li]Some patients are told they will be prayed for, but aren’t actually prayed for.[/li][li]Some patients are told they won’t be prayed for, but really are.[/li][/ol]
I suspect that if there was any substantive difference between the various groups, groups 1 and 3 would be pretty much identical to each other, as would groups 2 and 4.
I don’t see what other sort of procedure would settle a question like this one.
MEBuckner asked:
From the Staff Report under discussion:
*Two of the authors of the Skeptic magazine article mentioned earlier, William J. Matthews and Jim Conti, recently conducted a study on this very point. They got a group of sick volunteers to choose to receive either intercessory prayer (prayer on behalf of another person) or non-religious “positive visualization.” However, only one-third of each group actually got what they asked for, with the other third getting the other method, and the final third getting neither. Unsurprisingly to those who have seen the placebo effect in action, those who expected intercessory prayer felt better than those who asked for the visualization, no matter what they actually got. *
We have a very good librarian here in Spittletown Hospital. I asked him to track down several photocopies including ones in both the Skeptical Inquirer and the Skeptic. Obviously, you have a habit of skepticism, for which I forgive you.
You seem better at dealing with trivialities than answering my questions.