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"."

40 of 1,156 comments (clear)

  1. No point to this study by suso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No point to this study by the_humeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The issue is to debunk pseudoscience and other mystic entities. If it actually takes a funded scientific study to finally convince people, then so be it. Remember, we live in a society where "psychics" such as Miss Cleo actually make money for their "services".

    2. Re:No point to this study by Ibix · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So while a study like this may be a amuzing anecdote, in the end its completely pointless.

      It's worse than that. The bible has built-in defences against this kind of thing: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God (Matthew 4:7, according to bible-kjv). You're sunk either way - if God doesn't exist then prayer has no effect (except maybe the placebo effect). If he does exist he'll hide his hand so that you can't make him do stuff...

      Also, you can't control for how-many-million Christians in the world praying for "all the sick and infirm of this world", some of them adding "particularly John Smith, member of our church". If you don't control for it, you're implicitly assuming it has no effect.

      Note: I'm an atheist. I'm also a scientist. This experiment doesn't convince me...

      I

    3. Re: No point to this study by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > To debunk a popularly quoted study which found that prayer does help hospital patients.

      From the article:
      Half received daily prayer for four weeks from five volunteers who believed in God and in the healing power of prayer. The other half received no prayer in conjunction with the study.
      So how did they control for unauthorized prayers? Did they have little badges like radiation detectors, to ensure that the control group wasn't getting some unauthorized prayers?
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:No point to this study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Parent poster wrote:
      If it actually takes a funded scientific study to finally convince people,

      Article said:
      This result seems to contradict a previous study by the same authors

      So, question to the original poster. Did the original study "convince" you that prayer was effective? If not, why would this study hold any more water than the previous (other than the obvious point that its outcome matched your particular views)?

    5. Re:No point to this study by yurnotsoeviltwin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Funny strip, but don't confuse humor and science/logic. No self respecting creationist denies that species adapt to different environmental conditions, such as new drugs. That's microevolution, changes within a species, genus, or some upper limitation of the extent those changes can go. It's been proven, and it's easily observed. Macroevolution, which is essentially the progression from paramecia to humans, isn't nearly as clean cut or easily proven, and that's where the point of contention is. Even still, a lot of creationists do believe in macroevolution, or at least some form of it.

      About the OT, there's obviously a lot more research to be done. Thus far, there have been two studies on this topic, and the results contradicted each other, so unless you're just an antagonist who exists solely to rant against religion every time you get the chance, you'll suspend judgement for now. That's just the obvious conclusion of anyone with a good, scientific mindset.

    6. Re:No point to this study by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 5, Funny
      The issue is to debunk pseudoscience and other mystic entities.

      Exactly. But I certainly hope you weren't referring to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His noodly appendage, otherwise I'm going to have to ask you to step outside.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    7. Re:No point to this study by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative
      The molecular record has rather clinched the case, I'm afraid. All life on this planet falls into a nested hiearchy, and that is the key prediction of common descent.

      As to what Creationists accept, that has changed over time. Ten years ago there were plenty of Creationists who went around saying "adaption only within kinds". When sufficient numbers of examples of speciation were thrown in their face, they suddenly started doing odd things like redefining "kinds" and producing their own private definitions of what micro- and macro-evolution are. In fact, some are now quite happy to accept any form of evolution providing it does not have humans in the tree.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:No point to this study by God'sDuck · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The issue is to debunk pseudoscience and other mystic entities.
      the real problem with anything like this is that prayer, unlike spells or rituals, is a process by which a person attempts to communicate with another sentient being, who knows all about the situation. So what this study really asks, as interpreted by Christians (or other monotheists) is whether their deity chooses to respond in a way solely calculated to reveal his or herself -- none of the praying people were vested in the lives of those being prayed for (eg, the people themselves or their families), so *if* there was a God listening, he/she/it would have no reason to respond to the prayer other than to confirm his/her/its existence (via "the power of prayer"). of course, if a deity wanted worshippers rather than foul-weather friends, there'd be a vested interest in *not* responding, since few revelatory world faiths reveal gods particularly interested in being mindless prayer-fillers -- the theme of a "jealous God" who would rather have followers/worshippers/lovers (figuratively speaking) than "witch-doctors" who treat their god like a soulless force (like gravity) would suggest the study should, indeed, fail, as confirming it would contradict God's "desires."

      all this study does is confirm that either (1) there is no God or (2) God isn't amused by pseudoscientific studies. so the results support both the Atheist and orthodox Christian worldviews, and are only troubling to wishy-washy new agey-types that believe thinking happy thoughts should magically help other people. wee.
    9. Re:No point to this study by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most creationists believe in "microevolution"

      When faced with something so directly observable, they didn't have a lot of choice, did they?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re: No point to this study by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      > They put the control group inside a Faraday cage.

      And the test group in a Prayer-a-day cage?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    11. Re:No point to this study by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, I see..The scientist were praying wrong ... Well that explains everything then...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    12. Re:No point to this study by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There's no scientific measure for true belief.

      Sure there is. We call it "gullibility." And there are psychological tests that measure it.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    13. Re:No point to this study by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Funny
      I'm not religious, but at the same time I don't get why science always has to have something to prove.

      Wow. Just.. wow. I can't believe I just read those words. Can I sig that?

      This has to be one of the funnest statements ever made on Slashdot. Your logic is completely impenetrable. Kudos!

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    14. Re:No point to this study by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Oh, I see..The scientist were praying wrong ... Well that explains everything then...

      The problem with the study, and Science is general, is that it takes one negative result to mean that the procedure is ineffective, when instead we should be looking at the anomaly of why there was a few cases of success in the first place! It's like trying to prove a negative by lack of success. You don't prove something is impossible by failing to demonstrate it!

      i.e.
      Just because one person fails to fly, doesn't mean flight is impossible.

      ~
      Until you have been clinically dead, you have _no clue_ of what Life even is.

    15. Re:No point to this study by Darby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And how is that different from the other side wanting to prevent people from believing,

      Nobody is making any attempts whatsoever to use the law against believers in any way.

      to force gay marrige on a community,

      This isn't happenning in any way. It turns out that the constitution doesn't allow this kind of discrimination and so a bunch of asshats jumped up to pass a bunch of discriminatory laws and are even attempting to amend the constitution because they are too cowardly to live in a free country.

      to help assisted suicide?

      A person's life is there own. It's again, as always, the other side trying to shove their morality on others. If I want to kill myself and want to get help doing it how could that possibly be any of your business? It isn't. Not in any way.

      The only difference is which side you agree with.

      Not at all. This is a blatantly false statement. The difference is that one side is consistently trying to limit other people's freedom because they are too cowardly to live in a free country.

      If it's "your side" then it's good to force your ideas and beliefs on the community, if it's the "other side" then it's a bad thing.

      There is a deep fundamental difference between choosing to live your life according to your own beliefs and forcing your beliefs on others. Every single example the OP gave was of cowards trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. Every nonsense counter example you made up is not happening in any way.

      Nice try though.

      If you want to believe some hokey retarded old nonsense, knock yourself out.
      If you don't want to marry somebody of the same sex, don't.
      If you want to uselessly suffer through a terminal illness draining your savings into the medical industry instead of leaving it to your family, that's your choice and nobody is saying otherwise.

      Nobody is trying to force you into anything. They're only trying to prevent you from sticking your nose into their business. That's the only issue.

    16. Re:No point to this study by Cat_Byte · · Score: 5, Informative

      But those who actually *believe* in hogwash like that aren't going to be convinced by a scientific study, are they? Cognitive dissonance and stupidity are a mixture that's very difficult to overcome.

      The first thought that comes to mind on this is the Christian attempt to prove the world was indeed round

      Most people try to spin this the other way around though.

      In 1492, every educated man knew that the world was round. So did every ocean-going sailor. The "bigoted church leaders of Spain" did not oppose Columbus. Columbus had in fact been housed, supported, advised, and greatly aided by Spanish monks who encouraged him to present his proposal to the King and Queen. A Dominican priest, later Archbishop of Seville was one of his greatest supporters at the court. There was a University Commission which concluded that plans for his voyage were impractical. But the Commission agreed with Columbus that the world was round and gave no indication that they believed the Bible taught that the world was flat.

      The "hogwash" most atheists use to describe religion these days is usually fact based on fiction such as Washington Irving's novel about Columbus that stated the Christians (not the scientists) were the ones saying the world was flat.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    17. Re:No point to this study by DarkSarin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a psychologist in training (can't use the appellation just yet) I have to take exception to that statement. It's false.

      The ability to maintain a belief despite outside influences (whether or not this is a good thing is left as an exercise for the reader) is not gullibility. I think that's what was meant by true belief. I'm not certain.

      Gullibility, however, is a very testable question. In some ways it is more of a measure of how readily one accepts new beliefs or statements and has nothing to do with ones ability or propensity to maintain those beliefs. A person who is highly gullible may be just as likely to abandon their newfound 'truth' just as quickly as they found it. In fact, this is suggested by the definition of the construct.

      I think the parent was correct--there is not a scientific measure of true belief. There is a measure of religiosity, however, and I think this may be fairly close.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    18. Re:No point to this study by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting.

      So, because the person did a study that fails to demonstrate any efficacy from prayer, then he must have intended to bash God and religion?

      First, what does that say about the faithful, if nobody with faith would be willing to conduct such a study?

      Second, how does this notion of his anti-religious bigotry square with the fact (mentioned in the friggin' *summary*) that the same researcher did an earlier study that actually found a small statistical effect from prayer? Did God shoot his dog in the interim?

      You don't like the message, so you're shooting the messenger.

      To answer your "rhetorical" question: Because once the participants in the study know the people they're praying for, it becomes impossible to distinguish between effects stemming from the actual prayers, and the effects stemming from other involvements. For example, if you're praying daily for your neighbor Bob, you might also be more likely to visit him, take him a casserole, send flowers, or whatever. There's no anti-religious bias here; only anti-screwing-up bias.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  2. News flash! by spaztik · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news... wishing upon a star will not make dreams come true. Details at 11.

  3. Job Security by trongey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that they have two conflicting results they'll need a new grant to conduct another study so they can conclude which of their first two studies was correct. Yay! 5 more years of research funding.

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  4. Re:Queue Religion Flamewar by arose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    May Godwin help us.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  5. Hmm.. by jimmyCarter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As summed up on BoingBoing.. Maybe they were praying to the wrong god?

    --

    -- jimmycarter
  6. Optimism and Placebo by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Prayer and medicine by thewiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"?
  8. Re:I am unreligious...but what harm is praying? by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Praying for loved ones may not physically help a loved one, but certainly helps the mental state of the patient and their family.

    Thought experiment: Replace 'God' with 'The King of the Potato People'. We'd call someone sending messages to the King of the Potato People to help their loved ones 'delusional', and put them on medication, and possibly in a padded cell.

    Are you sure prayer is indicative of a healthy mental state? If so, explain how 'God' is different to 'The King of the Potato People', and why belief in one is delusional and psychiatrically treatable while the other is not.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  9. Prayer may not be for the patient by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Expectations by captnitro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. No wonder the prayers didn't help by vertinox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cthulhu was displeased with the family's offerings.

    Unfortunatley since they awoken the great Ancient one with their pleas for mercy, the heart patients and their family (and next of kin and family pets) will be eaten first and slowly.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  12. The Real Problem by Eightyford · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course the real problem is that God is too busy helping rappers get their bling bling. This is obvious if you've ever watched a music awards show.

  13. There *is* a point, you just miss it by tgeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  14. Re:Well of course not.... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Prayer comes from the heart, and can't be done in a cold and scientific manner in the name of research." (emphasis mine)

    Well, obviously then, the reason the prayer didn't work is that the patients all had defective hearts.

    Even as a heartless bastard, though, I can attest that at least some of my prayers to The One Who Lies Dead but Dreaming have been answered. Though not all those prayers involved positive thoughts.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  15. Maybe the victims were evil? by macz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Perhaps the real reason is that the people studied were not worthy of divine intervention? Did anyone check their level of evil before praying for them?

    --
    ...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
  16. Re:Think of it as a psycology experiment by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remember that there were different results when the patient was told they were being prayed for.

    Exactly.

    The mind is a powerful thing. Thought precedes all action.

    I saw on TV the other night where health insurance companies are starting to give patients CDs with soothing positive thoughts and the amount of medication the patients needed was less, they stayed less in hospitals, etc.

    Meditating people can do stuff like walk on fire and sleep outside in the freezing cold with only a thin sheet for cover.

    Hell, some people's minds tell them that they are billionaires while others just bitch about not having any money. On average, the people whose brains tell them that they are poor are over stressed and less healthy too. Go figure.

  17. No love from God. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No love from God. by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think his point was that God appears to care more about his own ego than the needs of suffering people. You're just picking at his wording of it.

      Also, the point you make raises one of the problems I have with mainstream religion; it's that it often devalues humanity and life (this life). All that is good and virtuous and extricated from humanity and placed in the symbol of "God," leaving humanity a base creature whose only salvation is in groveling at the feet of this perfect and vastly superior being. People glorify the afterlife and in return devalue the life they are living now, which is also earthly and "impermanent," as you say.

      So why persue science and medicine at all? why make discoveries? why create art? why listen to music? why start a family? Why not just spend our entire lives cloistered and worshipping this divine being who gives our life its only true meaning?

  18. In the words of Robert Ingersoll... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The hands that help are better than the lips that pray."

    A sentiment that remains unaffected by the outcome of such a study, IMO...

  19. Bash by christian.elliott · · Score: 4, Funny

    This reminds me of a great bash.org quote that I'd like to share with you all:

    Gear Grinder X: once, we had these total freak seventh day advenist (or whatever) freak ass neighbors

    Gear Grinder X: and this girl Lanna was a little younger than me

    Gear Grinder X: she was a bitch, and they were all totally religious

    Gear Grinder X: she threw rocks at me once on my bike, and so I turned around, and went to run over here

    Gear Grinder X: I was hauling ASS, and you know what she did?

    Gear Grinder X: put her hands on her hips, and stood there and said "The lord will protect me"

    Gear Grinder X: well.... he didn't

  20. Re:the "scientific" idiocy strikes again by SubtleNuance · · Score: 4, Informative

    1 - You can be devoutly religious and also logical/rational/scientific.

    No, you cant. Religion is the belief in in the supernatural.
    Science only only concerns itself with demonstratable conjecture to describe a natural phenomenon.

    Most people who construct the "Choose religion or science" frame do so (as I do) because I believe that once someone accepts that a supernatural world exists, they abandon their ability to pursue science. If your willing to accept the supernatural -- what purpose does reason and logic have in the pursuit of science (that which is natural)?

    2 - Some "scientific" and anti-religious people are just as bigotted, and illogical as the religious nuts.

    This is essentially the "science is a religion" argument, and I will have nothing to add beyond Richard Dawkins excellent article you can read here.

    As for the anti-religious being 'bigotted', yes, I can assume some are. I will admit to it myself. I will not apologize that I agree with Denis Diderot when he said "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

    Destroying religion as necessary to civilization as plumbing and not cohabitating with one's livestock.

    Religion is (to put it mildly) a bother and a bore, and Im tired of a world populated by masses who believe their supernatural deity is The Most Great. Religion keeps us from taking ownership of Humanity's OUR OWN PROBLEMS. Keeps us from realizing that WE ALONE are responsible for the state of our community. Religion is a manner of absolving oneself of responsiblity ("I give myself to you oh lord").

    This life is all we have. There is no second chance to get things right "next time", or reward in an afterlife. Please consign these fantasies to ancient history where they belong.

  21. Re:I am unreligious...but what harm is praying? by huge+colin · · Score: 4, Informative
    The parent is a flamebait, "Insightful" only for a crowd of arrogant atheists.
    Fortunately, atheists have earned the right to be arrogant by being correct where so many others are wrong.