The Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association writes about:
the research that demonstrated that patients who are prayed for, and know that they are, have worse outcomes than patients who are not prayed for or don't know that they are.
The classic response to "research shows", of course, is "which research" and "what about research that might show something a bit different and that you are not telling me about"? But this quotation has another hidden assumption: what is meant by a "worse outcome"? Is "outcome" measured solely in terms of the material "outcome"? Or does it allow for the "spiritual"? And if the research being referred to was commissioned by the British Humanist Society ....
1. Most hospitals do have multi-faith chaplaincy arrangements, and spiritual care is an accepted part of the support available to patients during their hospital stay. Spiritual care can vary from simple visiting to prayer and Sacramental ministry. It seems to me that there should be no difficulty in clinical staff (nurses, doctors and other medical professionals) asking a patient if they have a religious faith and, in the case of a positive response, asking if they would like a visit from an appropriate chaplain. The present environment of "patient confidentiality", and the anti-religious content of equalities policies, are having an unfortunate consequence in deterring clinical staff from having these simple conversations with their patients.
2. So far as I can gather, patients who have no religious faith are very often appreciative of a visit from a hospital visitor or chaplain- even if the conversation lasts only a few brief moments, and has absolutely no religious content. It seems that the British Humanist Society are doing their best to remove this valued service to patients.
3. Rather than trying to discourage clinical staff from raising the question of spiritual and religious care with their patients, I think we should encourage them to do so, and to provide the frameworks of chaplaincy to which they can refer patients in appropriate circumstances.
4. It should be absolutely clear that, in the relationship between patient and clinical professional, the purpose is the advising and consent to a course of scientifically competent physical treatment. The provision of religious care to those patients who wish it does not contradict the provision of perfectly competent physical care - which is the quite misleading suggestion of the last paragraph of the second letter in today's Times:
... if Christian medics say they will pray for the sick, theoretically the sick do not need him or her to be a doctor.
5. Why should the concept of spiritual care, generally accepted in hospitals, not be extended to care environments outside of hospitals - Primary Care Trusts etc?
6 comments:
Some other good "research shows" responses are to ask "Why is someone so keen raise speculative questions about the research while avoiding even the most rudimentary investigation themselves?"
A quick google turns up plenty of hits for the research mentioned, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html As you can see it's nothing to do with the British Humanist Association. Yes it is to do with medical results (namely complications arising from surgery), rather than 'spiritual' results, but then it is, after all, a study of medical efficacy, not of religious juju.
And to quote from the link provided by Anonymous, with my emphasis added:
In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for — 59 percent — suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain. The authors left open the possibility that this was a chance finding. But they said that being aware of the strangers' prayers also may have caused some of the patients a kind of performance anxiety.
"It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?" Dr. Bethea said.
The study also found that more patients in the uninformed prayer group — 18 percent — suffered major complications, like heart attack or stroke, compared with 13 percent in the group that did not receive prayers. In their report, the researchers suggested that this finding might also be a result of chance.
Point 5 is a good one (especially thinking of mental health services) but in the current economic climate, PCTs can barely manage to keep up with medical care, let alone provide salaries for chaplains.
I'm puzzled. OK, some patients might be adversely affected because they become alarmed that the offer of prayer was being made at all. But this would only be for some, I feel.
If the negative effects all have a psychological cause, then I wonder why people who believe in the power of prayer would have a negative result. Surely they would be encouraged by the propect of spirtual intervention (though the question as to why God would bother to intervene on the recovery of an in-growing toe nail but not a tumor covers old ground that I'm sure that believers and non-believers could rehearse like a familar opening to a chess game).
Should the non-belivers in the power of prayer (presuambly because they don't believe in God) now be considering that there is a God who does respond to prayer but adversely?
If the effects ARE the result of spirital intervention
then that would suggest best not to pray with others.
HOWEVER, does this type of research amount to testing God? The fact that they are testing him may influence his decision on how to react to the prayer.
So much to think about...
The wonderful thing about research is that there'll always be another piece of research to contardict it!
Actually, I think I read the other day that there is some research which shows that isn't the case!
Post a Comment