The Power of Prayer
In 1988, the Southern Medical Journal published a study conducted by Dr Randolph Byrd, a cardiologist and faculty member of the University of California Medical School at San Francisco. Dr Byrd studied almost 400 patients who were admitted to the coronary care unit of San Francisco General Hospital. Most of the patients had either experienced a heart attack or were suspected of having one.
They were divided roughly into two groups, both of which received state-of-the-art medical care. However, one group was prayed for while the other group was not. Their first names and a brief sketch of their condition were given to various Protestant and Catholic prayer groups in the geographic area. The prayer groups were then asked to pray, but were not told how often or how to pray for the sick patients.
This was a ‘double blind’ study, meaning that neither the nurses, physicians, nor patients knew who was and who was not being prayed for. Neither was one group sicker than the other; there were no statistical differences in the severity of illness between the two groups.
The prayed-for group was superior in several ways:
1. They were far less likely to develop congestive heart failure (eight compared to twenty patients).
2. They were five times less likely to require antibiotics (three compared to sixteen patients).
3. None of the prayed-for group required endotracheal intubation (artificial breathing), while twelve of the unremembered group required mechanical ventilatory support or artificial breathing.
4. Fewer of the prayed-for group developed pneumonia (three compared to thirteen).
5. Fewer of those prayed for experienced cardiopulmonary arrest, requiring resuscitation (three compared to fourteen).
The effect of different kinds of prayer was examined in another study, conducted by the Spindrift organisation in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. In directed prayer, the praying person is attaching a specific outcome to the prayer, such as praying for the cancer to go away. In contrast, a nondirected prayer asks for no specific outcome - ‘Thy will be done’. The study showed that, although both approaches are effective, the nondirected approach is quantitatively more powerful than the directed approach.
Back to:
Complementary Healthcare
A to Z
In 1988, the Southern Medical Journal published a study conducted by Dr Randolph Byrd, a cardiologist and faculty member of the University of California Medical School at San Francisco. Dr Byrd studied almost 400 patients who were admitted to the coronary care unit of San Francisco General Hospital. Most of the patients had either experienced a heart attack or were suspected of having one.
They were divided roughly into two groups, both of which received state-of-the-art medical care. However, one group was prayed for while the other group was not. Their first names and a brief sketch of their condition were given to various Protestant and Catholic prayer groups in the geographic area. The prayer groups were then asked to pray, but were not told how often or how to pray for the sick patients.
This was a ‘double blind’ study, meaning that neither the nurses, physicians, nor patients knew who was and who was not being prayed for. Neither was one group sicker than the other; there were no statistical differences in the severity of illness between the two groups.
The prayed-for group was superior in several ways:
1. They were far less likely to develop congestive heart failure (eight compared to twenty patients).
2. They were five times less likely to require antibiotics (three compared to sixteen patients).
3. None of the prayed-for group required endotracheal intubation (artificial breathing), while twelve of the unremembered group required mechanical ventilatory support or artificial breathing.
4. Fewer of the prayed-for group developed pneumonia (three compared to thirteen).
5. Fewer of those prayed for experienced cardiopulmonary arrest, requiring resuscitation (three compared to fourteen).
The effect of different kinds of prayer was examined in another study, conducted by the Spindrift organisation in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. In directed prayer, the praying person is attaching a specific outcome to the prayer, such as praying for the cancer to go away. In contrast, a nondirected prayer asks for no specific outcome - ‘Thy will be done’. The study showed that, although both approaches are effective, the nondirected approach is quantitatively more powerful than the directed approach.
Back to:
Complementary Healthcare
A to Z