Slashdot Mirror
Prayer Does Not Help Heart Patients
mu22le writes "A recent study conducted by the Duke University Medical Center on 700 patients, found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. Researchers emphasized their work does not address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf.
This result seems to contradict a previous study by the same authors that reported "cardiac patients who received intercessory prayer in addition to coronary stenting appeared to have better clinical outcomes than those treated with standard stenting therapy alone"."
What is the point of this study? Its not like it is going to convince the millions of people who don't like mixing science with their religion that they shouldn't waste time praying for their loved ones. Those people can trust science to make more fuel efficient SUVs, better bombs for Iraq and cure diseases. But when it proves that the earth is round, that the universe is 13-15 billion years old and that prayer doesn't really do anything, they think its hogwash.
And the people who scientifically minded already think that this fact is just plain obvious.
So while a study like this may be a amuzing anecdote, in the end its completely pointless.
In 3....2....1.....
You say you want a revolution....
I could give a shit what this study says as any positive focused thoughts such as prayer & meditation absolutely do help. Does this mean its based on some godly force? Heck no, it is just the power of positive thinking.
Giving people a reason to think good thoughts about others is what we should be doing, not shooting down another avenue for people to feel good.
Praying for loved ones may not physically help a loved one, but certainly helps the mental state of the patient and their family. I don't think anyone ever expects a miracle, but if it helps any one, in any manner, then more power to them.
btw, I dare ANY body who's watched a loved one suffer to deny that they said a few words to God 'Just in case'. It certainly can't hurt. I'm not religious, but I've been there.
As summed up on BoingBoing.. Maybe they were praying to the wrong god?
-- jimmycarter
Remember that there were different results when the patient was told they were being prayed for. Once that's done, it introduces an interesting twist:
They're praying for me? Oh, crap, I must be a goner.
Sure enough, those who were told they were being prayed for had more complications than those who weren't told.
On a more serious note, I think it's important to do this as a counter to the other "experiments" that showed that prayer helped people. Science is about reproducing results. If a scientist claims something is true, it's the obligation of others to prove them wrong or back up the findings.
From the article:
The prayer portion of the randomization was double-blinded, meaning that patients and their care team did not know which patients were receiving intercessory prayer. Per Institutional Review Board policies governing clinical research, all patients were aware that they might be prayed for by people they did not know, from a variety of faiths.
While double-blind tests are generally a good idea, perhaps another study should be carried out in which the patients themselves know whether people are praying for them (perhaps including people they know, as well as people of the faith they request). The increased optimism and placebo effect may produce something desireable (not saying it will, but it might be worth a study by the same people who expended their resources on this one).
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
As a heart patient myself, it always gave me a mental boost to know that others were taking time to pray for me when I had to go in for surgery. Even though prayer may not directly affect the outcome of a surgery, letting the patient know that there are people who care about them can make a big difference.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Prayer comes from the heart, and can't be done in a cold and scientific manner in the name of research. Or at least that's what I have come to think very religious people would probably think. This disregards what I consider to be the main way spirituality helps too. It gives people hope and strengthens them. Mind over matter isn't just a useless saying, it's a pretty significant tool in medical recovery as I understand.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Recently when my sister-inlaw was diagnosed with lukemia my wife and I were left stunned. We had chosen to live half way around the world, too expensive to travel when most of our family was still there to comfort her.
We instead decided to take our prayers to the Wester Wall (HaKotell), as jews have done for thousands of years. It's one incedent, and no basis for a conclusive "Prayer Works" post. But it did at least let us do something, other than sit and worry.
What is the alternative of a loved one to prayer? Nothing, nadda, zilch. Prayer may help, it may not. But if it's a choice between possibly useless prayer and definetly useless worrying, prayer makes more sense. (Pascals wager) If nothing else it makes you feel better.
I would be curriuos to know if there is a difference in stress related illnesses between people who pray (in one form or another) and those who dont. I know for me the worst source of stress is to have a problem and no pragmatic way to affect it.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
I don't want to have to make this point, but I feel obligated in light of all the Smug that's about to enter the thread -- but this study isn't really useful for debunking anything except the previous "studies" that it did help patients. "Prayer is more about changing the person doing the praying, than about bringing changes to world events." "Even if all the things that people prayed for happened -- which they do not -- this would not prove what Christians mean by the efficacy of prayer. For prayer is request. The essence of request, as distinct from compulsion, is that it may or may not be granted. And if an infinitely wise Being listens to the requests of finite and foolish creatures, of course He will sometimes grant and sometimes refuse them. Invariable "success" in prayer would not prove the Christian doctrine at all. It would prove something more like magic -- a power in certain human beings to control, or compel, the course of nature." (C.S. Lewis) I'm not religious by any means, but I think Lewis has a fair point.
I don't know how many flamewars I'm going to have to go through before the message starts sinking in, but because I'm an obstinate fellow I always seem to be good for at least one more. There are two main points: 1 - You can be devoutly religious and also logical/rational/scientific. 2 - Some "scientific" and anti-religious people are just as bigotted, and illogical as the religious nuts.
1 - Devoutly Religious and Also Scientific
Where's the big surprise here? Take a look at the Jesuits. In other surveys, the level of activity a Mormon has in his or her religion is actually positively correlated to the level of education. There are tons of religious doctors, lawyers, physicists, etc. I'm a statistician moving into systems engineering - and I have no trouble at all distinguishing between religious beliefs and scientific beliefs. This point is so obvious I shouldn't even have to bother restating it.
2 - The "Scientific" Bigots
It's pretty simple. You can be religious and you can be bigot (or not). You can be a scientist and you can be a bigot (or not). Anyone that thinks that being a scientist somehow frees people from their biases and prejudices needs to do a little research into things like eugenice. Hell, even setting aside nasty racism and such there's the simple fact that scientists, mathematicians, etc. are people. They have egos. They like to be right. And a lot of the time they don't care whether they're stating their opinion based on research or based on personal bias. They should - but they don't.
Anyone that believes in "blind faith" - the type of faith that essentially amounts to wishful thinking - is a religious nut in my opinion. There's no logical basis for this type of theology, but it is nonetheless extremely prevalent in American society. But there are also those who believe that faith should be reasonable or who at least make an interesting case for blind faith. Existentalist philosophy, for example, was started by Christian theologians like Kierkegaard.
In short, I'm sick of this tired old bullshit: Those people can trust science to make more fuel efficient SUVs, better bombs for Iraq and cure diseases. But when it proves that the earth is round, that the universe is 13-15 billion years old and that prayer doesn't really do anything, they think its hogwash. Those nutjobs are a SUBSET of religious people. A proper subset, if you want to get technical.
Meanwhile: And the people who scientifically minded already think that this fact is just plain obvious. is just plain wrong. Plenty of scientifically minded people believe in the efficacy (under certain conditions) of prayer. The types of people who think it's "obvious" that prayer does nothing are (again) a proper subset of scientifically-minded people. And if they think it's obvious, I'm inclined to say they're not really any different, in terms of their fanatic dogmaticism, than the religious nuts they criticize.
It comes to this: I don't care if you're religious or an atheist. All I want to see is that you're not a knee-jerk adherent of whatever worldview you subscribe too. It's the reason that people believe - more than the object they believe in - that really matters. As long as you believe rationally and honestly - you're always in a position to be proved wrong, admit mistakes, and develop improvements to your own worldview. But if you are dogmatic in your belief system then you are doomed to perpetual, slavish obedicance to concepts you never question or challenge. I don't care of those concepts are Newtonian physics, Einsteinian physics, quantum physics, or the 10 Commandments. It's the slavish obediance itself that I find most reprehensible and dangerous.
-storrmin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Science's task is to test hypotheses.
The belief that prayer has beneficial medical effects is a widlely-held hypothesis that can be tested.
The results of such a test could improve treatment and life in general. Therefore, it's a worthwhile pursuit.
That *you* think it's silly doesn't change anything. Much sillier theories have been put to the test -- and gotten unexpected results.
Tom Geller
Seems to me the summary doesn't match TFA (big surprise). Which makes me think all the smug "well, duh" respondents didn't RTFA. Another surprise.
"The researchers found no significant differences among the treatment groups in the primary composite endpoint. However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT."
How is a decreased 6-month death rate not helpful?
I would like to see as part of the study, having a third group of people for whom people would pray for them to die. It seems that studies of this sort are never really thorough or well-designed, for that matter.
I don't understand the mechanism by which prayer could help. I cannot conceive how G-d could care more about a person prayed about than a person not prayed about. So I can't easily come up with any method, either scientifically or "religiously," where prayer would improve outcomes, (Disclaimer: I'm just a confused citizen of the world, not a theologin) but I pray anyways. If I hear somebody I care about is terribly ill, there's no usually no logical action I can take. Prayer makes me feel a little better about the situation.
I can come up with a way their control group could've been badly polluted. Some, perhaps many, "prayers" may have felt that it would be unethical or uncaring to not pray for the control group. So if every person in the study gets a prayer or two, but the anonymous control is getting the combined prayers of many, well, the control group would get more prayer. "Anonymous" means nothing to an omnipotent, omnipresent G-d.
This study does at least show that, if whatever pertinent deity exists, it cares more about its ego than the needs of people who may die as the result of an illness. (Which, because the fact of existence remains hidden, ensures that more people will suffer eternal damnation.) In otherwords, “God” cares les about human life and than about being worshipped by those with superstition. (Which is ironic because if we were created, we were created with logical, thinking minds which drive us to discover cause and effect rather than pursue blind faith.) So whether or not such a supernatural entity exists, we must find ways to advance and rely upon our science rather begging for help from invisible men in the sky.
Join Tor today!
Assuming God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni theater, what good is Prayer?
If I truly need something, God most likley already knows about it, and it's up to Him if he does anything about it.
If I truly am thankful, God will know.
Moreover, saying Grace always seemed like a cruel joke: Thanks God for making me dependent upon a scarce resource. Sure, food isn't scarce in the U.S. (for unto us was given Agribiz, and it was deemed good by the markets...) but it is scarce elsewhere.
The biggest failure is the prayer for peace. Every Sunday Charlantan says "Pray for Peace," but it never comes. And, based upon the ministerial world view, the Peace they want is completely different than the peace a different faith wants.
Prayer as a meditation? Now, that sounds a good thing. Reflect on the days events. Question if I'm really doing the right thing. Probably not a bad thing. But asking the Holy Game Show Host for stuff? Well, seems like a waste of everyone's time.
Just to be sure, I be sure to hit most of the major Greek gods, the major Roman gods, Yahweh (old and new testament variants), Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Vishnu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Don't forget Cthulhu!!
"The hands that help are better than the lips that pray."
A sentiment that remains unaffected by the outcome of such a study, IMO...
Did anyone bother to actually read the linked articles?
2001 Study:
"Differences in clinical outcomes between treatment groups were not statistically significant. However, those receiving noetic treatments 'had lower absolute complication rates and a lower absolute incidence of post-procedural ischemia during hospitalization,' said Crater."
2005 Study:
"The researchers found no significant differences among the treatment groups in the primary composite endpoint. However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT. Patients treated with bedside MIT also showed changes in self-rated emotional distress prior to catheterization and stenting."
The new study did not find that prayer has no effect, it reinforces the previous finding that prayer improves recovery. What prayer has no effect on is the actually outcome of surgery, which is exactly the same thing that the orginal study found. Before people go off an debate the meaning of these studies they should at least bother to read them.
One thing I've noticed that some people assume about prayer is that prayer means doing nothing and hoping God will perform some miracle.
Prayer operates on the following principles:
a) we have to do everything in our power to make the desired result happen first
b) the desired result has to be God's will
When the leader of a nation at war did not send enough troops to the army, the frustrated general wrote to the leader and said:
"11 Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain."
"21 Or do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us?"
(http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/60)
That's why the 'religious' person in New Orleans who says "I know a huge flood is coming, but I'm going to just stay here and pray, because I know God will protect me," isn't going to be protected, because they are not doing all they can do to protect themselves first.
Similarly, if I get sick and say "I'm not going to a doctor; I am just going to pray to be healed!" then I am very likely not going to receive any help from God, because I am not making use of the means that He has provided for me (a doctor, medical help, etc).
I definitely know that prayer can and does work. The key is that we have to do all we can do first.