Intercessory Prayer: A Waste of Time?

As a writer, I spend about 1 hour per day wading through e-mails, press releases, online journals and other such creations of the electronic media in order to learn if something within these communications is actually worth passing on to the reader. And while the following essay may not be considered as news to the casual reader, I found its topic quite interesting.

Gil Gaudia, Professor Emeritus, State University of New York at Fredonia recently published an essay entitled About IntercessoryPrayer: theScientificStudyofMiracles, 1which deals with the efforts to scientifically evaluate the ability of prayer to favorably influence the clinical course of a properly diagnosed and well-documented physical illness.

Dr. Gaudia begins with a quote from David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be even more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish. . . 2

What Hume is saying is that merely labeling some event as a miracle, regardless of the stature of the one making the determination, is not sufficient cause to elevate the event to such an exalted position. This sentiment provides the foundation for the remainder of Gaudia's essay. Gaudia first takes issue with the occasional reports in the medical literature that claim to have documented the effectiveness of prayer within a supposedly unbiased and scientifically valid clinical study. His concern, as well as mine, is that some researchers seem to have forgotten that it is practically impossible to evaluate a subjective topic (such as whether prayer works) using the objective techniques of clinical and scientific research. The potential beneficial effects of both on-site (in the patient's sight or within hearing range) and remote (outside the patient's immediate vicinity prayer were the subject of a meta-analysis involving 14 previously published studies devoted to the subject of intercessory prayer. The findings of this study were: There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP [Intercessory Prayer] as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research [Emphasis Added].3

Surprisingly, there has been one study that found a detrimental effect on patients awaiting cardiac surgery that were aware that they were being prayed for (59%) versus those who were unaware of such efforts on their behalf (51%). One of the investigators, with tongue in cheek, offered a possible explanation for the study's findings: ... 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? [Emphasis added]"4 The faithful, when confronted with evidence that prayer is ineffectual, will almost invariably respond with one of two responses. The first response will be something similar to if prayer doesn't work at least it doesn't work. This opinion is refuted by Benson, et al as well as by Flamm in Inherent dangers of faith-healing studies. 5

In this article Flamm lists 12 potential shortcomings of faith healing studies such as: 1. Faith healing can cause patients to shun effective medical care.An example: A patient diagnosed with in the early stage of an aggressive type of breast cancer would turn to a prayer group rather than follow the excision and chemotherapy advice of her physician 4.Faith-healing studies raise informed consent issues.Since the available data indicates that prayer is, at best, ineffectual; would informing the patient of that finding be deemed essential in obtaining a valid informed consent? 7.Faith healing studies encourage acceptance of magical and irrational thinking.This point is obvious in that reliance on prayer or other such ritualistic interventions is in itself de facto proof that such ideation is present. 9.Positive faith-healing studies could affect public policy.Although the Bush administration's push for faith based programs and other such interventions have yet to demonstrate any positive benefits; the Religious Right seems to have no reservations about citing these programs as partial justification for its attempts to influence future programs.

Let's face it; the effect of prayer on any endeavor cannot be objectively quantified. Since there is no way to evaluate, under controlled experimental conditions, the contentions of those insisting that prayer is effective; I propose that such studies be abandoned. If any group wishes to investigate the role of prayer, let them use their own money. Based on Dr.Gaudia's commentary and the results of above mentioned studies, I have but one request: the next time I wind up in a hospital, don't pray for me.

Works Cited 1. Gil Gaudia, PhD: Commentary - AboutIntercessory Prayer: the Scientific Study of Miracles, Posted 20 March, 2007 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/552742?src=mp Accessed 26 March, 2007. 2. David Hume: An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1902:114-116. This title is also available online from the Project Gutenberg web site. 3. S. Masters, G.I. Spielmans, and J.T. Goodson: Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review. Ann Behav Med. 2006; 32:21-26 4. J. Benson, J. Dusek, and P. Sherwood, et al. Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Am Heart J. 2006; 151:934-942 5. B.L. Flamm: Inherent dangers of faith-healing studies. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 2004-05. Available at: http://www.sram.org/0802/faith-healing.html