This is indeed an interesting discussion. However, when I saw that Benson's study had cost $2.4 million, I couldn't help wondering how such a study gained ethical approval, especially as I am assuming, from the results of this study, that it is highly unlikely that any smaller scale study offered the sort of promising results which would normally warrant further investigation.

Just a thought...

Carol



Dr Carol Taylor

Senior Lecturer / Fellow in Academic Practice

CPD and Postgraduate Studies Division

Elizabeth Gaskell Campus

Manchester Metropolitan University

Hathersage Road

Manchester

M13 0JA

Tel: 44 (0) 161 247 2970

e-mail: [log in to unmask] 



"Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you

should read the Manchester Metropolitan University's email

disclaimer available on its website

http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer "





>>> "Djulbegovic, Benjamin" <[log in to unmask]> 11/04/2006 16:08:17 >>>



I copied below a piece from NYT from this am written by a theologian- it may help put better in perspective faith vs. science (at the stake here is TESTABILITY of the question, which Popper expressed as his famous criterion of demarcation).





Benjamin Djulbegovic, MD,PhD

Professor of Oncology and Medicine

H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute at the University of South Florida Department of Interdisciplinary Oncology, MRC, Floor 2,Rm# 2067H

12902 Magnolia Drive

Tampa, FL 33612



e-mail:[log in to unmask] 

http://www.hsc.usf.edu/~bdjulbeg/ 

phone:(813)972-4673

fax:(813)745-6525





Op-Ed Contributor

Faith-Based Medicine 

Sign In to E-Mail This Print Save  By RAYMOND J. LAWRENCE

Published: April 11, 2006

RESPONSIBLE religious leaders will breathe a sigh of relief at the news that so-called intercessory prayer is medically ineffective. In a large and much touted scientific study, one group of patients was told that strangers would pray for them, a second group was told strangers might or might not pray for them, and a third group was not prayed for at all. The $2.4 million study found that the strangers' prayers did not help patients' recovery. 



The results of the study, led by Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston, came as welcome news. That may sound odd coming from an ordained minister. But if it could ever be persuasively demonstrated that such prayer "works," our religious institutions and meeting places would be degraded to a kind of commercial enterprise, like Burger King, where one expects to get what one pays for. 



Historically, religions have promoted many kinds of prayer. Prayers of praise, thanksgiving and repentance have been highly esteemed, while intercessions of the kind done in the Benson study - appeals to God to take some action - are of lesser importance. They represent a less-respected magical wing of religion. 



In fact, many theologians reject out of hand the notion that any person or group can effectively intercede with God in any respect. Paul Tillich and Karl Barth, the two major Christian theologians of the 20th century (and certainly no opponents of prayer) would have scoffed at the idea. The Lord's Prayer, the central prayer of Christendom, contains no plea for God to influence specific events in people's lives. 



The news from science will not lead religious people to stop praying for others. Prayers are expressions of empathy that strengthen a caring community and bring comfort to those who are suffering. Comfort in this context undoubtedly has therapeutic health benefits. But scientists should not leap to the assumption that the ruler of the universe can be mechanically requisitioned to intervene in people's suffering or health. 



It is unsurprising and not a little ironic that patients in the study who were told unequivocally they were being prayed for did worse than those who were told only that they might be. When medical personnel dabble in religious practices, we should anticipate that patients might interpret this as a sign of desperation. 



Doctors in particular should be pleased that the Benson study demonstrated no benefit from intercessory prayer by strangers. Recently, a colleague told me about a devout, well-educated woman who accused a doctor of malpractice in his treatment of her husband. During her husband's dying days, she charged, the doctor had failed to pray for him. If prayer could be scientifically shown to help, every doctor would be obligated to pray with patients, or at least provide such service, and those who declined to do so would properly be subject to charges of malpractice. 



In my several decades as a clergyman working closely with doctors, I have never met one who prays with patients, nor one who prescribes intercessory prayer. There are other ways to express personal care and concern. 



Besides, the earlier, smaller scientific studies claiming that intercessory prayer was effective have been exposed as flawed. Perhaps the monumental Benson study will mark the end of all such research. 



We should note that the impetus for this recent research has come almost entirely from scientists, not from religious leaders. It seems that no credible theologian has been involved in planning, directing or even consulting on such studies. But scientists who conduct research on religious practice should at least consult reputable theologians. Had they done so to begin with a considerable amount of money could have been saved. Scientists who undertake the work of theologians are as reckless as theologians who pretend to be scientists.



Raymond J. Lawrence, an episcopal priest, is the director of pastoral care at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columibia University Medical Center.









-----Original Message-----

From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bastian, Hilda

Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 06:33

To: [log in to unmask] 

Subject: AW: Evidence for faith based interventions



G'day!



One of the other problems with the evidence on this question is what is the purpose of the intervention, and who are the potential recipients of benefit/harm. Praying, especially in extremis, is often recommended as an intervention for the pray-er, not the pray-ee. As such, it may well be an effective (or ineffective or harmful) intervention in alleviating family/carer distress.



Hilda



= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

 

Hilda Bastian

 

Ressortleiterin Gesundheitsinformation

Chefredakteurin: www.gesundheitsinformation.de 

 

Head of Health Information Department

Editor-in-Chief, www.gesundheitsinformation.de 

 

Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen

 

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care

 

Dillenburger Str. 27

D-51105 Köln, Germany

 

    tel:               + 49-221 / 35685-401         

    fax:              + 49-221 / 35685-1

    email:         [log in to unmask] 

 

http://www.iqwig.de 

 



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Jim McManus

Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. April 2006 12:05

An: [log in to unmask] 

Betreff: Re: Evidence for faith based interventions



As someone trained first in theology then in public health I agree - going down the line of proving prayer as an intervention seems to me to be missing the point



Jim  





Jim McManus

Public Health Specialist



Barking & Dagenham Primary Care Trust

The Clock House

East Street

Barking 

IG11 8EY



Direct Tel:020 8532 6359

Fax: 020 8532 6201

Phonetext: 020 8532 6230



>>> Joe Matthews <[log in to unmask]> 10/04/2006 20:07 >>>



I think the issue of researching intercessory prayer is an example of confused epistemologies.  If we were to accept that the only reason for the research was to test the effect of prayer on surgical outcome a clinical trial could be appropriate.  On the other hand, if we are really looking to query the existence of God then the research changes dramatically.  The characteristics of a clinical question determine the most appropriate study design and methodology.  In this case I suspect the study is more (or less) than advertised and it suffers from fundamental biases.  

If we want to study the existence and characteristics of God, RCT's are unlikely to satisfy skeptics or believers.  If we are convinced that we are truly testing the efficacy of prayer then we have failed to appropriately consider who we're dealing with.  How we know what we know changes with the question and why it was asked.

 

Joseph Matthews, DDS

Clinical Assistant Professor

Department of Surgery

University of New Mexico, USA

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Philip Hall <[log in to unmask]>

To: [log in to unmask] 

Sent: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:15:12 -0500

Subject: Re: Evidence for faith based interventions





,,,at a cost of ~$24 million USD!



Philip F. Hall, MD 

Prof., U of Manitoba,

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada



Philip F. Hall, MD BScMed FRCSC

Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba

Director, Fetal Assessment, Manitoba Obstetric Outreach and

Maternal-Fetal Medicine Programs

President of Medical Staff

St.Boniface General Hospital, 409 Tache Avenue D2044

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R2H 2A6

ph 204-237-2547 FAX 204-233-1751

(Past Chair, Obs & Gyn Specialty Committee,

Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada)



<www.umanitoba.ca/womens_health>



>>> Jim Walker <[log in to unmask]> 4/10/2006 10:28 AM >>>

This intervention has nothing but the name in common with intercessory

prayer as it is practiced and experienced in the traditions that I know

of. This is a wonderful example of the act of observation changing the

nature of the thing observed.



Jim



James M. Walker, MD

Chief Medical Information Officer

Geisinger Health System









__________________________________________________

This email and/or any documents in this transmission is intended for the 

address(s) only and may contain legally privileged or confidential information.  

Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, copying or dissemination is 

strictly prohibited.  If you receive this transmission in error, please notify 

the sender immediately and return the original.



Ce courriel et tout document dans cette transmission est destiné à la personne 

ou aux personnes à qui il est adressé. Il peut contenir des informations 

privilégiées ou confidentielles. Toute utilisation, divulgation, distribution, 

copie, ou diffusion non autorisée est strictement défendue. Si vous n'êtes pas 

le destinataire de ce message, veuillez en informer l'expéditeur immédiatement 

et lui remettre l'original. 





This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.



If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message.



Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.



This message has been scanned for viruses and spam by SurfControl RiskFilter - E-mail.



-----------------------------------------

###########################################################################

##  This transmission may be confidential or protected from disclosure and

is only for review and use by the intended recipient. Access by anyone else

is unauthorized. Any unauthorized reader is hereby notified that any

review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this information, or

any act or omission taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be

unlawful. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the

sender immediately.  Thank you.   #########################################

####################################