The abstract below is from a paper that has just appeared in the Journal of
Medical Ethics and that may be of interest to some TIPSsters.
The empirical results from recent randomised controlled studies on remote,
intercessory prayer remain mixed. Several studies have, however, appeared in
prestigious medical journals, and it is believed by many researchers,
including apparent sceptics, that it makes sense to study intercessory
prayer as if it were just another experimental drug treatment. This
assumption is challenged by (1) discussing problems posed by the need to
obtain the informed consent of patients participating in the studies; (2)
pointing out that if the intercessors are indeed conscientious religious
believers, they should subvert the studies by praying for patients
randomised to the control groups; and (3) showing that the studies in
question are characterised by an internal philosophical tension because the
intercessors and the scientists must take incompatible views of what is
going on: the intercessors must take a causation-first view, whereas the
scientists must take a correlation-first view. It therefore makes no ethical
or methodological sense to study remote, intercessory prayer as if it were
just another drug.
Here is the citation: Turner, D. D. (2006). Just another drug? A
philosophical assessment of randomised controlled studies on intercessory
prayer. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 487-490.

http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/8/487?etoc
____________________________________________
Miguel Roig, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Notre Dame Division of St. John's College
St. John's University
300 Howard Avenue
Staten Island, New York 10301
Voice: (718) 390-4513
Fax: (718) 390-4347
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm
On plagiarism and ethical writing:
http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/
________________________________________




---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english

Reply via email to