Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Religion, the new health drug?
Hello all,
Next week my studies looks at the role of faith/alternative theraphies in aged care. This is more a clinical study as to their usage amongst the elderly and the staff as well...........we(the class) have to do meditation!!!!! As I was brousing I found this and thought it might be of interest to anyone here????
TLC -- The Learning Curve
Religion, Health, and Questions of Meaning
From Medscape General Medicine™
Posted 09/19/2005
Andrew W. Garrison, MD
Research on the relationship between religion and health dates to at least 1872, when Francis Galton investigated the effects of intercessory prayer on mortality among English royalty, clergy, and missionaries.[1] Galton concluded that intercessory prayer did not seem to affect mortality, and the topic received scant further attention in the medical literature until the late 20th century. Since then, a surge in studies on religion, spirituality, and health has prompted renewed debate about the appropriate role for religion and spirituality in the clinical setting. On one side of the debate, advocates for a partnership between religion and medicine cite a growing body of literature that suggests a link between religiosity and improved health.[2,3] Indeed, there is evidence that religiosity may be associated with reduced all-cause mortality, disability, cancer mortality, cardiovascular disease occurrence, and medical service utilization.[4] Proponents of this position also state that, despite their potential health benefits, religious activities often constitute a significant part of patients' identities, influence patients' mechanisms of coping with disease, and inform patients' decisions about medical management. For these reasons alone, advocates recommend that healthcare providers acknowledge and address the spiritual concerns of their patients,[2,5,6] primarily by taking a spiritual history[5] or encouraging patients to make use of health-promoting resources from their own religious traditions.[7]
Critics of the religion and health movement claim that the magnitude of associations between religious practice and better health is actually quite weak and is based on data from methodologically flawed studies.[8] They also argue that, regardless of any potential health benefit that may be gained from increased religiosity, ethical concerns should prevent physicians from integrating religious practice with clinical practice.[9] They note that a physician's professional status, which is based on medical rather than theologic expertise, is abused when he or she makes recommendations about spiritual or religious matters. Furthermore, critics contend that although physicians may take a patient's religious commitments into account while providing care, it does not necessarily follow that physicians ought to take on religion as an intervention. Sloan and coworkers[8] analogize that physicians do not encourage patients to marry just because marriage is associated with lower mortality. Opponents of the union between spirituality and medicine lastly argue that supporting a patient's religious beliefs may actually do harm, particularly by inadvertently encouraging the belief that the patient's illness is due to a moral shortcoming.
Despite burgeoning interest in the relationship between religion and health, few have analyzed this topic from a theologic perspective.[10] Studies to date have generally measured religiosity by quantifying and dichotomizing communal behaviors, such as attending religious services or solitary practices (such as praying or reading religious texts).[11,12] Commentators writing from a theologic perspective consider such a quantitative approach to be overly reductionistic, and suggest closer consideration of the implications of subjecting religious beliefs to standard methods of scientific investigation.[10,13] Shuman and Meador,[10] 2 proponents of this theologic view, point out that in contemporary medical literature the concepts of belief systems are treated as more important than the particularities of the respective religious traditions -- that is, whether a patient is "religious" or "not religious" is more important than the doctrinal content of the patient's religious tradition. They argue that when religion is operationalized in this way, the act of belief -- whether it is measured by observing a subject's religious behavior or by attempting to quantify spirituality -- is incorrectly understood to be more important than the content of that belief.[10] It is this sort of understanding that is implicated, for example, when researchers recommend that physicians encourage their patients to make use of health-promoting resources from the patient's own religious tradition,[7] insofar as the physician is unconcerned with the exact beliefs and rituals of that particular tradition.
Indeed, some theologians warn against the misunderstandings that may result in considering religion generically. In a seminal work, Lindbeck[14] used sociologic, anthropological, and historical sources to argue that religion is more accurately understood as being analogous to a culture or language than as a belief or action rooted in feelings of faith, that is, the only way that we can describe someone as religious is by reference to a particular religion, one that is determined by its unique language, account of the ends of human life, description of a deity, and more. By this understanding, it is inaccurate to assume that there is a common core of faith that is shared among persons of different faiths and can therefore be measured. Consequently, no one is generically religious or spiritual; such descriptions instead necessarily involve a specific religion -- even if it is constituted by a vague and pragmatic spirituality of one's own choosing.[10] Conceiving of worship or prayer in terms of patients' health benefits may therefore be to interpret these practices differently from how most major religious traditions have done throughout history, the ultimate concern of most major traditions being with worship and faithfulness rather than with health. In a sense, the "religion" of "religion and health" may be a very different one from the religions of history.
The divergence of opinion between researchers and theologians on this subject is readily illustrated in the example of intercessory prayer, a form of prayer in which persons petition divine intervention for a particular outcome or event to occur. For researchers, intercessory prayer is an intervention that can be studied in a way analogous to any other therapy. Some theists, on the other hand, object to the implicit labeling of prayer as a type of technology, such as cardiac catheterization or diuretic medications. Instead, for them, it is a locus for encountering and entering into relation with God.[15] They believe that prayer both requires and expresses faith in a deity; to conceive of prayer with regard solely to its efficacy requires no faith and thus is not prayer.[16] To study prayer as an intervention -- rather than a way of encountering a deity that is known only through the communal stories and practices of a particular religion -- is, according to Bishop,[16] a physician and Episcopal priest with training in philosophy, to study a "pale, weak, and meaningless image of its former self that is not identifiable by anyone of faith as prayer."
Theologic arguments also identify the importance of attending to the specific content of a patient's religious practice and faith: A physician who supports a patient's participation in Appalachian snake-handling rites is encouraging a different practice from supporting a Muslim patient's daily prayer. Although the prevailing viewpoint within the medical literature is that physicians should not engage in theologic discussions with patients about the nature of God, sin, or suffering,[5] even advocating that physicians encourage patients to pursue their own religious beliefs challenges physicians with the inappropriate assignment of distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate religious practices, a task that even many clergy would avoid.[17]
The discussion about religion and medicine raises questions about authority and wider ends within the practice of medicine: To what extent should patients, physicians, researchers, or theologians define the integration of spirituality with medicine? Ultimately, there is little agreement as to whether religious beliefs and practices are fundamentally instruments that can be used in the service of improved health, or instead are ways of being faithful to a specific set of practices and beliefs that will not necessarily provide health in exchange for worship.
References
Galton F. Statistical inquiries into the efficacy of prayer. Fortnightly Rev. 1874;12:125-136.
Koenig HG. Religion, spirituality, and medicine: application to clinical practice. JAMA. 2000;284:1708.
Post SG, Puchalski CM, Larson DB. Physicians and patient spirituality: professional boundaries, competency, and ethics. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:578-583.
Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB. Handbook of Religion and Health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.
Lo B, Quill T, Tulsky J. Discussing palliative care with patients. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:744-749.
Cohen CB, Wheeler SE, Scott DA; Anglican Working Group in Bioethics. Walking a fine line. Physician inquiries into patients' religious and spiritual beliefs. Hastings Cent Rep. 2001;31:29-39.
Matthews DA, McCullough ME, Larson DB, Koenig HG, Swyers JP, Milano MG. Religious commitment and health status: a review of the research and implications for family medicine. Arch Fam Med. 1998;7:188-124.
Sloan RP, Bagiella E, Powell T. Religion, spirituality, and medicine. Lancet. 1999;353:664-667.
Sloan RP, Bagiella E, VandeCreek L, et al. Should physicians prescribe religious activities? N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1913-1916.
Shuman JJ, Meador KG. Heal Thyself: Spirituality, Medicine, and the Distortion of Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
Thoresen CE, Harris AHS. Spirituality and health: what's the evidence and what's needed? Ann Behav Med. 2002;24:3-13.
Mills PJ. Spirituality, religiousness, and health: from research to clinical practice. Ann Behav Med. 2002;24:1-2.
Ellis MR. Challenges posed by a scientific approach to spiritual issues. J Fam Pract. 2002;51:259-260.
Lindbeck G. The Nature of Doctrine. Philadelphia, Pa: Westminster Press; 1984.
Chibnall JT, Jeral JM, Cerullo MA. Experiments on distant intercessory prayer: God, science, and the lesson of Massah. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2529-2536.
Bishop JP. Prayer, science, and the moral life of medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1405-1408.
Lawrence RJ. The witches' brew of spirituality and medicine. Ann Behav Med. 2002;24:74-76.
Andrew W. Garrison, MD, Resident, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Email: andrew.garrison@hsc.utah.edu .
Disclosure: Andrew W. Garrison, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Medscape General Medicine. 2005;7(3):73. ©2005 Medscape
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2006 by Medscape. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties. Medscape requires Netscape or Microsoft browsers in versions 5 or higher.
Next week my studies looks at the role of faith/alternative theraphies in aged care. This is more a clinical study as to their usage amongst the elderly and the staff as well...........we(the class) have to do meditation!!!!! As I was brousing I found this and thought it might be of interest to anyone here????
TLC -- The Learning Curve
Religion, Health, and Questions of Meaning
From Medscape General Medicine™
Posted 09/19/2005
Andrew W. Garrison, MD
Research on the relationship between religion and health dates to at least 1872, when Francis Galton investigated the effects of intercessory prayer on mortality among English royalty, clergy, and missionaries.[1] Galton concluded that intercessory prayer did not seem to affect mortality, and the topic received scant further attention in the medical literature until the late 20th century. Since then, a surge in studies on religion, spirituality, and health has prompted renewed debate about the appropriate role for religion and spirituality in the clinical setting. On one side of the debate, advocates for a partnership between religion and medicine cite a growing body of literature that suggests a link between religiosity and improved health.[2,3] Indeed, there is evidence that religiosity may be associated with reduced all-cause mortality, disability, cancer mortality, cardiovascular disease occurrence, and medical service utilization.[4] Proponents of this position also state that, despite their potential health benefits, religious activities often constitute a significant part of patients' identities, influence patients' mechanisms of coping with disease, and inform patients' decisions about medical management. For these reasons alone, advocates recommend that healthcare providers acknowledge and address the spiritual concerns of their patients,[2,5,6] primarily by taking a spiritual history[5] or encouraging patients to make use of health-promoting resources from their own religious traditions.[7]
Critics of the religion and health movement claim that the magnitude of associations between religious practice and better health is actually quite weak and is based on data from methodologically flawed studies.[8] They also argue that, regardless of any potential health benefit that may be gained from increased religiosity, ethical concerns should prevent physicians from integrating religious practice with clinical practice.[9] They note that a physician's professional status, which is based on medical rather than theologic expertise, is abused when he or she makes recommendations about spiritual or religious matters. Furthermore, critics contend that although physicians may take a patient's religious commitments into account while providing care, it does not necessarily follow that physicians ought to take on religion as an intervention. Sloan and coworkers[8] analogize that physicians do not encourage patients to marry just because marriage is associated with lower mortality. Opponents of the union between spirituality and medicine lastly argue that supporting a patient's religious beliefs may actually do harm, particularly by inadvertently encouraging the belief that the patient's illness is due to a moral shortcoming.
Despite burgeoning interest in the relationship between religion and health, few have analyzed this topic from a theologic perspective.[10] Studies to date have generally measured religiosity by quantifying and dichotomizing communal behaviors, such as attending religious services or solitary practices (such as praying or reading religious texts).[11,12] Commentators writing from a theologic perspective consider such a quantitative approach to be overly reductionistic, and suggest closer consideration of the implications of subjecting religious beliefs to standard methods of scientific investigation.[10,13] Shuman and Meador,[10] 2 proponents of this theologic view, point out that in contemporary medical literature the concepts of belief systems are treated as more important than the particularities of the respective religious traditions -- that is, whether a patient is "religious" or "not religious" is more important than the doctrinal content of the patient's religious tradition. They argue that when religion is operationalized in this way, the act of belief -- whether it is measured by observing a subject's religious behavior or by attempting to quantify spirituality -- is incorrectly understood to be more important than the content of that belief.[10] It is this sort of understanding that is implicated, for example, when researchers recommend that physicians encourage their patients to make use of health-promoting resources from the patient's own religious tradition,[7] insofar as the physician is unconcerned with the exact beliefs and rituals of that particular tradition.
Indeed, some theologians warn against the misunderstandings that may result in considering religion generically. In a seminal work, Lindbeck[14] used sociologic, anthropological, and historical sources to argue that religion is more accurately understood as being analogous to a culture or language than as a belief or action rooted in feelings of faith, that is, the only way that we can describe someone as religious is by reference to a particular religion, one that is determined by its unique language, account of the ends of human life, description of a deity, and more. By this understanding, it is inaccurate to assume that there is a common core of faith that is shared among persons of different faiths and can therefore be measured. Consequently, no one is generically religious or spiritual; such descriptions instead necessarily involve a specific religion -- even if it is constituted by a vague and pragmatic spirituality of one's own choosing.[10] Conceiving of worship or prayer in terms of patients' health benefits may therefore be to interpret these practices differently from how most major religious traditions have done throughout history, the ultimate concern of most major traditions being with worship and faithfulness rather than with health. In a sense, the "religion" of "religion and health" may be a very different one from the religions of history.
The divergence of opinion between researchers and theologians on this subject is readily illustrated in the example of intercessory prayer, a form of prayer in which persons petition divine intervention for a particular outcome or event to occur. For researchers, intercessory prayer is an intervention that can be studied in a way analogous to any other therapy. Some theists, on the other hand, object to the implicit labeling of prayer as a type of technology, such as cardiac catheterization or diuretic medications. Instead, for them, it is a locus for encountering and entering into relation with God.[15] They believe that prayer both requires and expresses faith in a deity; to conceive of prayer with regard solely to its efficacy requires no faith and thus is not prayer.[16] To study prayer as an intervention -- rather than a way of encountering a deity that is known only through the communal stories and practices of a particular religion -- is, according to Bishop,[16] a physician and Episcopal priest with training in philosophy, to study a "pale, weak, and meaningless image of its former self that is not identifiable by anyone of faith as prayer."
Theologic arguments also identify the importance of attending to the specific content of a patient's religious practice and faith: A physician who supports a patient's participation in Appalachian snake-handling rites is encouraging a different practice from supporting a Muslim patient's daily prayer. Although the prevailing viewpoint within the medical literature is that physicians should not engage in theologic discussions with patients about the nature of God, sin, or suffering,[5] even advocating that physicians encourage patients to pursue their own religious beliefs challenges physicians with the inappropriate assignment of distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate religious practices, a task that even many clergy would avoid.[17]
The discussion about religion and medicine raises questions about authority and wider ends within the practice of medicine: To what extent should patients, physicians, researchers, or theologians define the integration of spirituality with medicine? Ultimately, there is little agreement as to whether religious beliefs and practices are fundamentally instruments that can be used in the service of improved health, or instead are ways of being faithful to a specific set of practices and beliefs that will not necessarily provide health in exchange for worship.
References
Galton F. Statistical inquiries into the efficacy of prayer. Fortnightly Rev. 1874;12:125-136.
Koenig HG. Religion, spirituality, and medicine: application to clinical practice. JAMA. 2000;284:1708.
Post SG, Puchalski CM, Larson DB. Physicians and patient spirituality: professional boundaries, competency, and ethics. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:578-583.
Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB. Handbook of Religion and Health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.
Lo B, Quill T, Tulsky J. Discussing palliative care with patients. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:744-749.
Cohen CB, Wheeler SE, Scott DA; Anglican Working Group in Bioethics. Walking a fine line. Physician inquiries into patients' religious and spiritual beliefs. Hastings Cent Rep. 2001;31:29-39.
Matthews DA, McCullough ME, Larson DB, Koenig HG, Swyers JP, Milano MG. Religious commitment and health status: a review of the research and implications for family medicine. Arch Fam Med. 1998;7:188-124.
Sloan RP, Bagiella E, Powell T. Religion, spirituality, and medicine. Lancet. 1999;353:664-667.
Sloan RP, Bagiella E, VandeCreek L, et al. Should physicians prescribe religious activities? N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1913-1916.
Shuman JJ, Meador KG. Heal Thyself: Spirituality, Medicine, and the Distortion of Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
Thoresen CE, Harris AHS. Spirituality and health: what's the evidence and what's needed? Ann Behav Med. 2002;24:3-13.
Mills PJ. Spirituality, religiousness, and health: from research to clinical practice. Ann Behav Med. 2002;24:1-2.
Ellis MR. Challenges posed by a scientific approach to spiritual issues. J Fam Pract. 2002;51:259-260.
Lindbeck G. The Nature of Doctrine. Philadelphia, Pa: Westminster Press; 1984.
Chibnall JT, Jeral JM, Cerullo MA. Experiments on distant intercessory prayer: God, science, and the lesson of Massah. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2529-2536.
Bishop JP. Prayer, science, and the moral life of medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1405-1408.
Lawrence RJ. The witches' brew of spirituality and medicine. Ann Behav Med. 2002;24:74-76.
Andrew W. Garrison, MD, Resident, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Email: andrew.garrison@hsc.utah.edu .
Disclosure: Andrew W. Garrison, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Medscape General Medicine. 2005;7(3):73. ©2005 Medscape
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2006 by Medscape. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties. Medscape requires Netscape or Microsoft browsers in versions 5 or higher.
0
Comments
We often think that our thoughts are in private, protected by the thick calcium skull and our thin skins. However familiarity with molecular physics will tell one that actually nothing is "leak-proof",all objects no matter how smooth and full it looks has tiny gaps, openings and holes as the sub-atomic particles orbit away. As we think, our brainwaves might possibly "escape" or "leak" out into the world - thereby together with the collective brainwaves of others, we may possibly influence events. NOTE: Influence is not change.
Very pseudoscience here, but via prayer or will, this brainwave signal is alot more powerful and distinct. I am not really familiar with brainwaves other than alpha and beta, so I'm learning more as I go. But the reason why they manage to improve health is because well, unrestricted cognition. You don't have to fall sick even if your immune system is dead. You don't have to die even if your cancer cells are all spread. However few can exhibit such faith and will to cause the subconsciousness to work hard enough to influence the body to listen completely.
Hello,
You're right KW stress is one of the biggest killers, amongst the elderly high levls of stress is a paramount avoidance. They hate change, everything is routine, routine, routine. For us, the workers this can be a nightmare!! So things like meditation, sport and other past-time is really important. Oh, being around people who have incontinance, dementia/senility and other mental illness and who have a greater chance of croaking on you.....destressing is important....if you're tense the residents react negativly to you. Their like animals in that they sense fear/anguish more.
Ajar, its Alpha, Beta, Theta, and the brain is able to "spike" into K. This is little understood. I'm unsure about the stuff you're talking about, collective unconscious I heard about, though its in relation to Jung's theory. I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm just saying I don't know. My study is rather clinical. Most people in our class have related meditation to religion, and most here look upon religion as neuclear waste...its best to be buried elsewhere.
Cheers,
dear esau..
best of luck on your studies
the first thing i did was look who wrote this article you enclosed.. ( Medscape General Medicine )
one can always tell what side of the fence the opinion will be on.
happy studying. this would be right up my alley.. i work with seniors to. i do their
hair and have a very tight relationship with each and everyone of them..also i have nursing behind me but i just dont like the way the system is.
as of recent i am putting together a meditation class that i will volunteer.. because
i think it is needed..
pills pills pills.. they dont no what or how many or why they are taking them..
and its because the damm western federal drug administration rules!! that is my
peeve.. money money..
i have consolded and changed some of the seniors. ( the ones that are ignorant to
any believe system as a whole ).. they may be catholic etc. but they are not brain
washed by their doctors..
i hope you find and im sure you will.. the receptive ones are the openminded ones.
always watch were your information comes from.. or who sponsers the tv show,
or what radio station is behind conservative government etc.etc.
it would be wunderful if the east and the west could get together on aiding the disease
with their combined knowledges.
yet it is sad that the eastern ways will always stand long side and never in the for
front.. they will never get the full recognition they deserve.. we will alway hear
" oh yes their could be alil truth to this meditaion.. acupunture etc. "
but for the money that the FDA makes and the ego's that are involved the big guys
in the rich lands will always sell their pills.. and people will remain to be brainwashed.
dont get me wrong..
PLEASE.. i no there is nurses and doctors on line here in our message boards..
and i have been on almost death row myself.. and im very very thankful for the attention
i recieved..
im just hopin i dont offend anyone.. we do live in the west and that is the general way
of thought..
so i think anyway..
lol
there is one traditional western medical aid that I always adhere to:
"Take this with a pinch of salt"
Thats my $0.02 worth.
*Awaiting onslaught* teehee.
FRESH CRUNCHY CHIPS AND A DIET PEPSI..
MMMMM.. BET THEY DONT HAVE THAT IN THE EAST..LOL
Extra salt and dripping with taste-enhancing fat, for me thanks! woohoo
Yes we do have salt here in Australia-in fact heaps of it in our waters-that's why we are so incredibly good swimmers and beat you all in the pool at the olympics.
regards,
Xray
Xman, mate what's this drinking foreign beer!!!!!!:nonono: What about the good old VB etc. Xman, Colleen, I'm shocked, health professionals and all and you eat salt!!!!:nonono: See Esau, the shining beaconhe is, with such a healthy diet of FAT:rockon:
Oh and Medscape ain't too bad. I use it for my course, its really careful about materials used. I posted it as an interest, most of the residents I've looked after are in high-care, demetia wards, so though some of them can manage mobility wise anything thing else is way too confusing for them.
Medication is another issue. While I work in the industry, I have limited knowledge of the meds. I think as long as their meds are routinely checked and monitored then everythings sweet. Companies that are global giants are always giong to pressure doctors/hospitals etc to push their drugs. Sometimes their worse than the sellers on the street pushing their crap onto addicts, since the doctors/hospitals get kickbacks for the amount they sell. This has been especially prevelent in the Mental health industry (been there, done that) so I while I wish to see no one forced to take certain medication, I believe their is a place for it.
@##$$&^%$ us all......well that's my conspiracy theory anyway:buck:
Well, it's Ajani, not Ajar - if you ar espeaking about Ajar, you are speaking to both me and Argon. :rockon: