| A Pagan Journal for Thinking People |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
Elizabeth Barrette
This issue mentioned a double-blind study about the effects of healing prayer in reproductive medicine, in which 50% of the women prayed for conceived, compared with 26% of the control group. Neither the women nor any of the medical staff involved in their care even knew that a study was being conducted. That reference launched a discussion which has continued for months as various readers submitted references to additional studies, personal arguments, and other relevant tidbits. About the same time, I got my hands on a couple of review copies that covered similar ground.2 With the "Healing Paths" issue of PanGaia coming up, I decided to explore the matter in more detail. The first thing I noticed is that scientific studies of healing prayer vary drastically in focus and organization. Some are thoughtfully arranged, others quite careless; and they look at many different things. So the results also vary a great deal. The second thing, of course, is that healing prayer itself (and other types of metaphysical healing, which researchers and writers often lump together into a single category) comes in diverse forms. Religions and individuals express themselves in many ways. Despite these factors, it is clear that something is going on. Healing prayer makes a blip in the numbers, often a big blip, and not always in the way expected. The details vary, but the presence of an effect is almost universal. This raises countless questions, so the sensible scientific (and magical, for those of you who approve of methodical magic) thing to do is study the matter further. Here we run into problems. Some of the studies are just plain sloppy, which makes their results questionable or useless. Others are well organized in terms of protecting the data, but badly organized in terms of protecting the people, which can produce fine data and much ethical turmoil. I believe that most of this trouble arises from the simple fact that few researchers take prayer seriously. If they did, they would treat it with the respect it deserves, for it can be an awesomely powerful force; but since they don't, they are often careless. Even among people who take prayer seriously, opinion varies on exactly what prayer is and how it works, which leads to quite different conclusions about the ethics of its application. The biggest split I've seen so far comes between people who consider healing prayer a form of magic, who tend to feel that you shouldn't do it for someone else without the recipient's permission; and the people who consider healing prayer purely spiritual, who tend to feel that you don't need permission. Another split comes between people who believe that healing prayer is, like most things, subject to misfires if not applied with some care; and those who believe it is foolproof and can never do harm. Those on the magic side tend to consider healing prayer as potentially fallible, and those on the purely spiritual side tend to consider it foolproof - in essence, people might make mistakes but the Divine does not - but the correspondence isn't exact, and some practitioners cross the lines. Perhaps the most interesting ethical argument I've heard is that, since healing prayer clearly tends to do good, this conveys an obligation for us to perform it. I've encountered all of these positions, and more, from multiple individuals and sometimes in religious traditions as well. Many fascinating questions arise that deserve exploration. What afflictions respond well to healing prayer? How big of a change can we create and measure? What specific types of effect can healing prayer produce? Does healing prayer work better when: performed by experts such as priests, by people who know the recipient, or by random laypersons; performed at the recipient's side, at a distant holy place, or at a random location; performed by someone of the same religion as the recipient, or a different religion; performed once, in a set sequence, or in several random sessions; addressed to a universal deity, a deity in charge of healing, or a deity specializing in the recipient's exact affliction; accompanied by physical accouterments such as candles or a photo of the recipient, or not accompanied? Has healing prayer ever caused undesirable side effects in the recipient (or anyone else, for that matter); and if so, what are those side effects and how can they be prevented? What are the most effective ways of integrating healing prayer with other types of health care? Here, then, are some of my conclusions on this issue: Since the body of data available thus far strongly suggests that healing prayer offers significant benefits, it should be available to anyone who wants it. (Several studies noted that healing prayer was cheaper, less invasive, and more effective than standard treatments for the affliction studied.) Churches and other religious groups would do well to offer it as a service, to their members and perhaps to other interested recipients; and indeed, many do this. Hospitals and other health care providers would likewise do well to offer such services, probably by having a chaplain or by making arrangements with outside religious groups, and should make sure that people know this is available; currently some do, but some don't. Preferably, people should practice religious tolerance, try to offer the widest range of choice in available services, and respect each other's decisions in what to provide or accept. Healing prayer deserves a lot more study. If something is important enough to study, it is important enough to study right - which means researchers should follow established methods for making sure the results will be scientifically valid and ethically sound. I am particularly disturbed by several studies which were conducted without the knowledge of the people involved; I feel quite strongly that all studies conducted on human beings must first secure the informed consent of the participants. (In America, we enjoy a right to freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion; while private individuals may pray as they please, I find it unacceptable for formal organizations to force prayer on a captive audience who did not come to them for that purpose.) There are already established methods of doing double-blind studies which satisfy both scientific and ethical standards. What does this mean to Pagans/Gaians? Well, if you're doing interfaith work to provide Earth-centered spiritual services at a local hospital, you're on the right track. If your coven or church offers a healing prayer circle, you're also on the right track. If not, you might want to consider trying these things. If you or someone you love is in distress, look into healing prayer as part of treatment. For those of you who work in health care or science or other places with research opportunities, think about proposing a well-designed study on some aspect of this topic. Everyone, of course, can keep an eye out for studies as they publish their results, and you can also look up sources of previous studies. It is also a good ethical exercise to think about this issue and figure out where you stand. Gaia gave you a brain and expects you to use it.
Be informed. Be inquisitive. Be sensitive to your own needs and those
of people around you. And be blessed!
Elizabeth Barrette |
 |
 SageWoman
NewWitchThe Blessed Bee Newsletter, PanGaia and SageWoman Magazines are trademarks of Blessed Bee, Inc. All other products mentioned are registered trademarks or trademarks of their respective companies. Site maintenance by WJS. Copyright © 1997-2009 BBI Media. All rights reserved. Some pages on this site are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. To view these pages you will need to have the FREE Acrobat Reader. If your system does not have Acrobat installed yet it can be downloaded from the Adobe website at no charge. Get Acrobat Reader. |