God, Buddha, Shiva, Allah, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jesus, Vishnu And Your Patient

[Sasha]

Do you believe patient's faith plays a major part in their prognosis? Do you feel that religious or spiritual patients generally have a better outcome or are more at peace with a poor prognosis? Why or why not?

 

[emtbill]

Only in that religious patients may be more at ease and peace with a false sense of security that a divine power will heal them which may have physiologic benefits. That is, someone who is at ease may have lower blood pressure and heart rate which may benefit their prognosis. Whatever it takes to achieve that state will be beneficial to the patient. If it's religion, so be it. Outside of this do I believe religious patients have a better prognosis because of divine intervention? No way. If God was responsible for healing patients he would allow amputees to re-grow limbs. I think the idea of God is patronizing to the infinite complexity of the universe and biological processes.

It must be nice though, having that warm fuzzy feeling that God will make everything alright for the patient, that whatever happens is God's will and is no consequence of medicine. That is much easier to understand than the pathology of the patient's condition and is a major reason religion is so widespread today.

 

[daedalus]

This is coming form a liberal atheist (me):

There was a major multi-center study a while back that showed ICU patients had improved outcomes when they or their families prayed for them.

I saw this a while ago and cannot provide a link. Anyone have anymore on this please chime in.

Whether this is purely the power of positive thought, or otherwise, we will never know.

 

[Sasha]

Whether this is purely the power of positive thought, or otherwise, we will never know.

Just to get this clear, I am an atheist as well. (Daedalus, I'm starting to think you and I are long lost dizygotic twins.).

I think positive thought has a lot to do with a patient's prognosis, and I think a faith that there is something "out there" taking care of them gives some comfort and the will to live. I'm starting to believe healing is just as much mental as it is physical.

 

[rescuepoppy]

Where it comes from is not the most important part. What is important is that a positive out look will help a patient to have a better out come.

 

[Ridryder911]

I learned it takes more faith to believe that this is all there is to life. I feel sad that anyone would place so much trust in just mere humans. That when one looks at a sunset or early morning, one could not believe in some form of higher power. The same as witnessing miracles that no man could had ever produced. If science was truly an exact we definitely would be healing more people.

Laugh, if you want. I have seen prayer work where traditional medicine did not. I feel my faith is much more reliable than the majority of those that acclaims to be healers. Sorry, I have very little faith in traditional medicine and those that acclaim to be the wisest in it. I have seen the most famous of research to be only debunked and fraudulent. The most famous of "healers" are just mere humans that so happen to be having a better percentage diagnosis than others, nothing more nothing less.

Are there concerned providers and great scientific minds? Yes; but that is only part of the medical care. The patient has to have faith in those providing care as well. You show me a patient that does not believe in the current therapy or care they will be getting and I will show you patient that will not be responding to therapy. Even those that are in a unresponsive state are usually labeled as "strong willed or determined", that makes a recovery.

For every scientific study made, I will show you another one that disproves it. We acclaim that it is all scientific when in reality it is just a gamble that we use the most current and recent one that has a higher number. The best medicine today maybe the most lethal one tomorrow. It's just a little game, what is popular today will be dangerous tommorrow until 10 years from now, and regain popularity again.

Many of you may not believe me, stay in the business for greater than 10 years and you will see the cycle.

As one of the most famous heart transplant surgeons told me.. (he was Muslim)..." I am just an instrument, do you think I actually have any more power than that?"

R/r 911

 

[CAOX3]

I learned it takes more faith to believe that this is all there is to life. I feel sad that anyone would place so much trust in just mere humans. That when one looks at a sunset or early morning, one could not believe in some form of higher power. The same as witnessing miracles that no man could had ever produced. If science was truly an exact we definitely would be healing more people.

Laugh, if you want. I have seen prayer work where traditional medicine did not. I feel my faith is much more reliable than the majority of those that acclaims to be healers. Sorry, I have very little faith in traditional medicine and those that acclaim to be the wisest in it. I have seen the most famous of research to be only debunked and fraudulent. The most famous of "healers" are just mere humans that so happen to be having a better percentage diagnosis than others, nothing more nothing less.

Are there concerned providers and great scientific minds? Yes; but that is only part of the medical care. The patient has to have faith in those providing care as well. You show me a patient that does not believe in the current therapy or care they will be getting and I will show you patient that will not be responding to therapy. Even those that are in a unresponsive state are usually labeled as "strong willed or determined", that makes a recovery.

For every scientific study made, I will show you another one that disproves it. We acclaim that it is all scientific when in reality it is just a gamble that we use the most current and recent one that has a higher number. The best medicine today maybe the most lethal one tomorrow. It's just a little game, what is popular today will be dangerous tommorrow until 10 years from now, and regain popularity again.
Many of you may not believe me, stay in the business for greater than 10 years and you will see the cycle.

As one of the most famous heart transplant surgeons told me.. (he was Muslim)..." I am just an instrument, do you think I actually have any more power than that?"

R/r 911

That paragraph couldnt be more truthful.

Medicines dirty little secret I like it.

If I hadent seen some things with my own eyes in this field I would have never believed it.

All I can do at some scenes is shake my head and say someones looking out for you.

Actually I say it to myself then take all the credit.

 

[Maya]

It depends on whether you're talking about a long-term or short-term prognosis. I'm an atheist, but I try to respect people's beliefs. I think that positive-thinking and a belief in a higher power can have a short-term effect (ie. lowering blood-pressure, etc., like you said). However, I don't think that religion can have a significant impact on prognoses in the long-term (ie. cancer, heart disease).

Although I try to respect people's beliefs, the problem occurs when people try to replace scientifically-proven treatments with faith-healing, when they have serious problems that require urgent medical attention.

You have to respect a person's right to choose to refuse treatment. I can understand that some people are skeptical of medicine, when doctors push unnecessary drugs left and right, and pharmaceutical companies constantly advertise drugs that have a list of side-effects two-pages long. It's unfortunate that that kind of irresponsibility can make people distrustful of medicine.

But ultimately, you can't wish Cancer away. Unless by wishing, you change your behavior in more direct ways, like: taking medication, undergoing treatment, changing eating habits and exercise, and so on.

 

[CAOX3]

But ultimately, you can't wish Cancer away. Unless by wishing, you change your behavior in more direct ways, like: taking medication, undergoing treatment, changing eating habits and exercise, and so on.

So how do you explain cancer just going away.

 

[Melclin]

Oh boy I can see this thread going south really quickly. This had better not turn into an Heathens Vs Bible bashers cage match. The question as I saw it has two parts: their actual prognosis and how they feel about their prognosis.

Their actual prognosis: Yes, regardless of interventionist gods sweeping down and plucking tumours from peoples heads, its well recognized that believing something will work as well as being happy/positive about you prognosis, will tend to improve your condition. We all know that one; placebo affects, lower stress etc. I believe that unless a person's religious beliefs gets in the way of their medical treatment (blood transfusions, denying treatment in favour of prayer etc) then I think it helps immensely (of course, as an atheist [once militant, now relaxed] I still think its a delusion, but in this case a very helpful one).

Daedalus: I think the study you're referring to was one published in Archives of Internal Medicine in 1999 regarding prayer for pts. Have a look and see what you think, if you don't have journal database access, a free abstract can be found here: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/159/19/2273
I seem to remember there being some considerable controversy over a study like this (can't remember if it was this one), and it certainly got brought up a lot in the old "A vs +" debates I used to have.

How they feel about their prognosis: I seem to remember reading an article somewhere back in the old catholic school days about a study that discovered that religious people often dealt with death worse than atheists. I've been looking for that study for about 10 mins and can't find anything, but I'll get back to you on the matter if I do.

The problem there, though, is that self declared atheists have often put a lot of thought into why they are atheists including the issues of death and dying. However, the average believer is less likely to have been forced to consider their beliefs critically; their religion is assumed, they grow up with it and have not thought out all of their views on life, death and universe.

I think the deciding factor there is the amount of thought and 'meditation' you've put into dying before it happens, not necessarily your stance on religion. Atheist and theist scholars, I feel, would both deal equally better with their prognosis than their uneducated and unintellectual counter parts. It's just that atheists are forced to consider their position more often than believers because it is an anti-thesis, and a very controversial one too, in some parts of the world.

As an interesting aside, I just read an article that I found doing a lit search for some other stuff, showing a clear correlation between religious belief and ability to deal with emotionally traumatic experiences as an emergency nurse. I didn't really look over it much, it was translated from some Hungarian magazine and I couldn't make much of it, but an interesting idea none the less.

 

[Melclin]

"For every scientific study made, I will show you another one that disproves it. We acclaim that it is all scientific when in reality it is just a gamble that we use the most current and recent one that has a higher number. The best medicine today maybe the most lethal one tomorrow. It's just a little game, what is popular today will be dangerous tommorrow until 10 years from now, and regain popularity again. "

I know I shouldn't but I can't resist. God versus science aside: I'm very sorry to have to say this Rid because I respect you but this ^ is an old piece of faux wisdom that gets trotted out from time to time by those trying to make an uneducated, negative philosophical appraisal of science. And it most certainly is not science's/medicines dirty secret, CAOX3. More like science's greatest attribute. Accepted knowledge constantly evolves and changes based on evidence. Over time a knowledge base builds up and becomes more sedentary as it is backed up by more an more evidence. Yes studies are often conflicting, but over time as more evidence builds up, questions become more or less answered and new questions are asked. Basically, saying something like that shows a profoundly flawed understanding of the scientific method and the philosophy behind it.

Usually encouraged by the media who constantly fallaciously report that "Scientists prove this" and five minds later "Scientists now believe the opposite". ::

 

[Maya]

So how do you explain cancer just going away.

Well, admittedly, I don't have any case studies on hand, and I am going to have to make a sweeping generalization for argument's sake -- whereas a patient's diagnosis and prognosis are very individual matters that rely on a multitude of factors in that individual's genetics and lifestyle.

It is a very rare thing for Cancer to go into remission, much less disappear altogether, without any kind of treatment whatsoever. But, if it were to happen, I wouldn't have any more reason to think that it was because of faith than any other factor in that person's lifestyle or genetics, unless there were a significant amount of research showing that to be the case.

The problem that I have is when someone has a very strong chance for recovery -- often with little risk to their health through medical treatment -- but they choose instead to refuse treatment. Oftentimes they refuse treatment on the advice of an alternative faith-healer, when some of these faith-healer's are, in fact, charlatan's preying on the desperation of these people who are really very sick. (Please don't take offense at this -- I don't mean to put down all types of prayer and belief. I'm talking about psychics and the type of people who pull scams and know very well that they are not helping anyone.)

I don't want to put down anyone's beliefs. People define their existence, their purpose in life, and their reason for living, through their beliefs. In that sense, I think it is very important. If someone puts their beliefs above their health and knowingly puts their life at risk by denying treatment, that's also a choice they make -- it's not one that I am going to judge them by.

 

[reaper]

I can say that I believe in a higher power, but I am not religious. I do not believe in organized religion.

I think it is good for people to have faith. I do not like ones that fore go medicine, for prayer only. If there is a proven treatment that works, then use it.

That said, I think some of you that are just starting out in this field, will see things that will change your mind. The longer you are in medicine, you will see things that can not be explained in any scientific way! I have seen Pt's with stage 3 lung cancer, where all treatments failed. Multiple specialist tell the pt that they will die from it. Then it is gone, with no trace of the cancer! There is no explanation for it and Dr's are stumped by it. That my friend is called a miracle and something caused it.

I do not push anyone in that direction, but I respect their beliefs. That is all that counts in this world.

There are things that science or man can not explain or reproduce. Even the best scientist knows that there is more out there then can be explained!

 

[Sasha]

I think it is good for people to have faith. I do not like ones that fore go medicine, for prayer only. If there is a proven treatment that works, then use it.

I'm glad you brought that up! I just found an article on that. I think if the patient is religious, there should be a balance, not strictly faith and prayer, but their religious needs should be met to an extent.

The longer you are in medicine, you will see things that can not be explained in any scientific way!

I think will power and a person's preception of their condition and desire to live for whatever reason is a powerful thing, that being said, I do not believe it's handed down from a higher power, I think it is depends entirely on the person.

Anyway, here's the study.

Child Fatalities From Religion-motivated Medical Neglect
Full Text Here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/4/625

Objective. To evaluate deaths of children from families in which faith healing was practiced in lieu of medical care and to determine if such deaths were preventable.

Design. Cases of child fatality in faith-healing sects were reviewed. Probability of survival for each was then estimated based on expected survival rates for children with similar disorders who receive medical care.

Participants. One hundred seventy-two children who died between 1975 and 1995 and were identified by referral or record search. Criteria for inclusion were evidence that parents withheld medical care because of reliance on religious rituals and documentation sufficient to determine the cause of death.

Results. One hundred forty fatalities were from conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. Eighteen more had expected survival rates of >50%. All but 3 of the remainder would likely have had some benefit from clinical help.

 

[subliminal1284]

But you have to keep in mind also there could be a perfectly natural explaination of why someones health problems would suddenly disappear, We still have alot to learn about the human body so there may very well be a perfectly natural explaination as to why that occasionaly happens.

 

[Tincanfireman]

I've missed way too many Sundays in church to ever consider myself knowledgable in the Bible, but I do believe in the power of positive feelings. We have all given O2 @ 1LPM via N/C to a patient with a 98% PSO2 as a pallitive measure to calm them. Now, we knew they needed that O2 as much as a fish needs crutches, but if it makes the pt. feel better and isn't contraindicated, there is no harm in my book. The same goes with prayer; it doesn't do any harm and it calms the person I'm treating. I have been asked to pray with more patients and their families than I can count. I've prayed with Muslims, Jews, a Taoist(!), and every Christian persuasion under the sun, and will continue to do so. The big caveat is *if it doesn't degrade/delay patient care*. I've told many families that they can pray, but I have a job to do and I can't delay care. Without exception that has worked for me. For the record, I've seen too much stuff to not believe in miracles, and while I may be a lapsed church-goer, my faith is strong and yes, I believe in the hereafter and a divine being. (also forgiveness, cause if I don't get it, I'm in a bunch of trouble...)

 

[Ridryder911]

"For every scientific study made, I will show you another one that disproves it. We acclaim that it is all scientific when in reality it is just a gamble that we use the most current and recent one that has a higher number. The best medicine today maybe the most lethal one tomorrow. It's just a little game, what is popular today will be dangerous tommorrow until 10 years from now, and regain popularity again. "

I know I shouldn't but I can't resist. God versus science aside: I'm very sorry to have to say this Rid because I respect you but this ^ is an old piece of faux wisdom that gets trotted out from time to time by those trying to make an uneducated, negative philosophical appraisal of science. And it most certainly is not science's/medicines dirty secret, CAOX3. More like science's greatest attribute. Accepted knowledge constantly evolves and changes based on evidence. Over time a knowledge base builds up and becomes more sedentary as it is backed up by more an more evidence. Yes studies are often conflicting, but over time as more evidence builds up, questions become more or less answered and new questions are asked. Basically, saying something like that shows a profoundly flawed understanding of the scientific method and the philosophy behind it.

Usually encouraged by the media who constantly fallaciously report that "Scientists prove this" and five minds later "Scientists now believe the opposite". ::

Ever heard of Scientific Junk? Yep, you show me a study and many times I can show you a bribe or skewed numbers somewhere. Sorry my friend, I worked in academic research and there is usually a motive and reason to anything, as well as sponsors and funding of research grants that depend upon an outcome .(Ever read the amiodarone study?) Do we find answers?... You bet & ironic many times it has nothing to do with the original study.

I agree this is the best we have and can do. I am definitely not against Scientific Studies and one of the biggest supporters of such; but I am against some of the unethical process that I have personally seen from so called "Academic and Medical Mentors". I have personally seen numbers skewed and variables change to meet the outcome that they wanted. Then to be published in well respected Journals and thought of as gospell.

I do believe though as many; Science and Religion can get along and coincide.

Wait till you been in medicine in a few decades and then inform me how much you trust most studies. Again, the majority in medicine do not know how to interpret the readings if they do read one. Even physicians sometimes are getting easily opinionated by a poor study that would never pass scrutiny on most professional levels.

One of the many reasons, I am so glad that statistics will be part of the new Paramedic Scope. Being able to interpret findings from studies and to potentially weed out Scientific garbage.

R/r 911

 

[Maya]

I'd agree with you that that happens, but juking the stats has more to do with politics and greed than with science. It's unfortunate that that happens. It's the same thing with doctors handing out unnecessary meds so they can get kickbacks from the Pharmaceutical Companies.

Have you ever watched the show 'The Wire?' It's *awesome*! Not EMT related (sorry, don't close down the thread. I'm dropping it at that), but it shows how politics and administrative agendas get in the way of police work, the courts, and the school system. I guess corruption filters down through every level of society, in that way.

 

[Melclin]

Ever heard of Scientific Junk? Yep, you show me a study and many times I can show you a bribe or skewed numbers somewhere. Sorry my friend, I worked in academic research and there is usually a motive and reason to anything, as well as sponsors and funding of research grants that depend upon an outcome .(Ever read the amiodarone study?) Do we find answers?... You bet & ironic many times it has nothing to do with the original study.

I agree this is the best we have and can do. I am definitely not against Scientific Studies and one of the biggest supporters of such; but I am against some of the unethical process that I have personally seen from so called "Academic and Medical Mentors". I have personally seen numbers skewed and variables change to meet the outcome that they wanted. Then to be published in well respected Journals and thought of as gospell.

I do believe though as many; Science and Religion can get along and coincide.

Wait till you been in medicine in a few decades and then inform me how much you trust most studies. Again, the majority in medicine do not know how to interpret the readings if they do read one. Even physicians sometimes are getting easily opinionated by a poor study that would never pass scrutiny on most professional levels.

One of the many reasons, I am so glad that statistics will be part of the new Paramedic Scope. Being able to interpret findings from studies and to potentially weed out Scientific garbage.

R/r 911

It's no big secret that most research has it's little biases here and there, some bigger than others. Of course there is good research and bad research. How to weed through the mess is taught in university as part of just about any academic curriculum; I've had two subjects on it so far with another to come. Anyone worth their weight in test tubes knows that a paper should have its importance weighted against things like who the stake holders were, who peer reviewed it, who published it, etc; and that no one paper ever really constitutes a proof in and of itself. Of course actually applying that knowledge when you have a major essay due can be more difficult but I'm not sure why you think that this is all some big secret only available to the well experienced. Bias caused by internal and external factors like sponsors slows down the overall progression towards general scientific truth (it takes even more good research to overcome the damage done by the poor research), but it doesn't stop it. The answers do eventually come, and they come from scientific research, even if the original research into the matter turns out to be wrong. Don't get so hung up on which single paper said what. It's all about trends in knowledge and an understanding of what influences those trends.

Your original inference seemed to be that science is inherently fickle and its uses were ancillary to those of faith. That it's weakness lay in its fallibility. You still are, yet you also espouse the value of understanding it. Perhaps you are suggesting that the weakness lays in people's interpretation of it? If you are suggesting that people need to better understand research and statistics to overcome, or weed through the inevitable bias in the literature, then that's good but it is a far cry from what you were inferring in the original post. And what it has to do with the OP's post escapes me.

Well its not particularly important in any case, I don't know why I let myself get drawn into these pointless arguments and fill threads with material the OP isn't interested in.

 

[Summit]

I'm gonna die! Jesus, Allah, Buddha - I love you all!
-- Homer Simpson