Intercessory Prayer as a Therapeutic Intervention: A Review of the Literature

Graduate Research Methods CSS 5351

By Jordan Cox

10/21/2010

Usage of alternative forms of treatments for various forms of sickness and illness are

common in the United States. (Park, 2009; McCarty, Weber, Loots, Breuner, Vander Stoep,

Manhart, & Pihoker, 2010). Often these particular practices coincide with the beliefs or personal

philosophies of those individuals providing the treatments. (Hodge, 2007). Various

methodologies of research have been conducted related to intercessory prayer and whether or not

this form of communication has an effect or impact on the physical, emotional, mental, or even

social healing of one who is ill. (i.e., Palmer, Katerndahl, Morgan-Kidd, 2004; Aviles, Whelan,

Hernke, Williams, Kenny, O'Fallon, Kopecky, 2001; Gaudia, 2007).

Prayer has been typically defined as either a silent or verbal request made to God, or

some other type of transcendent entity, which the petitioner believes is able to effect change in

another person’s life. (Halperin, 2001; Roberts, Ahmed & Hall, 2003; Targ 2002). Intercessory

prayer, is simply defined as prayer said on behalf of someone else, but the person doing the

praying (i.e., the intercessor) is not present with the recipient of the prayer, thus making the

prayer distant. (Masters, Spielman, & Goodson 2007).

Questions regarding the study of subject matter of this type meet a myriad of challenges.

Examples include: Does historical research provide any measurements to display that

intercessory prayer is effective or ineffective as a therapeutic intervention? Are science and

matters of a divine nature mutually exclusive and therefore unable to be studied in acceptable

academic fashion? Can the matter even be studied in an empirical fashion to satisfy the rigors of

acceptable research? What ethical dilemmas are present in studies of this nature? Should the

medical field condone, participate, or condemn research studies in this area?

Generally, research studies on intercessory prayer do not tackle the topic as to whether

there actually exists a God, or transcendent being, who may or may not be able to impact health

2

in someone. The nature of the various controversies on the studies regarding intercessory prayer

include the validity of various cases to review, as well as issues related to metaphysical

assumptions about the very nature of reality. This review brings to light results of various

studies; the methodology used in those studies, and addresses the various questions previously

offered in the study of this topic.

Studies on matters of intercessory prayer have been controversial, because of an unsound

mixture of scientific and theological arguments present in many of the trials. (Jorgensen,

Hrobajartsson, & Gotzsche, 2009). In addition to methodological objections, philosophical

assessments concerning the study of intercessory prayer as if it were simply

another experimental drug, generally accepted by researchers and skeptics of

intercessory prayer, suggest the assumption should be challenged for multiple

reasons. These include: 1) problems posed by the need to obtain the informed consent of

patients participating in the studies; (2) if the intercessors are indeed conscientious religious

believers, they should subvert the studies by praying for all the patients; and 3) recognizing an

internal philosophical tension because the intercessors and the scientists must take incompatible

views of what is going on. (Turner 2005). Studies have also especially stirred controversy if

positive outcomes have resulted from the studies. (Halperin, 2001; Sicher, Targ, Moore, &

Smith, 1998; Targ, 2002).

The study of intercessory prayer and its value as a therapeutic intervention has been

exercised in a wide variety of studies as it relates to groups with specific illnesses or maladies.

(Arviles, Whelan, et.al. 2001; Harris, Gowda, et.al. 1999; Hefti, Koenig, 2007; Matthews, Conti,

& Sireci, 2001, Byrd, 1988). The studies have even included intercessory prayer on wound

healing in non-human primates. (Lesinak, 2006).

3

Several projects have undertaken the task to “study the studies” and provide

synthesized reviewable information on intercessory prayer. (Roberts, Ahmed, Hall

& Davison, 2009) investigated the effects of intercessory prayer as an additional

intervention for people with health problems already receiving routine health care.

Systematically searching relevant databases, authors chose any randomized trial

comparing personal, focused, committed and organized intercessory prayer with those

interceding holding some belief that they are praying to God or a god versus any other

intervention. Data was extracted from various studies independently. Results included 7,646

patients related to death, re-hospitalization, and re-admittance to coronary care. The authors

concluded that although some of the individual study results did suggest a positive effect of

intercessory prayer, the vast majority of studies certainly did not. Further, authors suggested the

evidence did not support a recommendation in favor of or against the use of intercessory prayer

and further trials of this nature should not be undertaken. (Roberts, et.al. 2009).

In his own review of the empirical literature on intercessory prayer, (Hodge, 2007)

suggests the practical use of this practice as a therapeutic intervention is controversial and raises

questions about the appropriateness of obtaining private consent forms. He also presents severe

study limitations in the works reviewed, as well as his own work, suggesting those studies with

positive outcomes are more likely to be published compared to studies that do not have positive

outcomes. The author points out that the “gold standard” for empirically evaluating interventions

to test efficacy should utilize standardized measures, and a double-blind randomized control trial

methodology, however, it should be noted concurrently that RTC’s involves a number of

debatable epistemic assumptions. (Slife & Gantt, 1999). These RTC’s help control extraneous

effects that might foster false positives or negatives. (Hodge, 2007).

4

Concerns regarding failure to meet certain standards in studies of this nature have also

been concurred by others. (Hoover, Margolick, 2000; Hamm, 2000). While seeking the

evidentiary status accorded “gold standard” methodologies generally accepted, authors suggest

many of these studies fall short of the requirements of the World Medical Association's

Declaration of Helsinki for the ethical conduct of trials involving human subjects. For example, a

sample of fifteen such studies published in medical literature, were found to have ignored or

waived key ethical precepts, including adequate standards of care, patient confidentiality and

informed consent. Because intercessory prayer was considered in most studies to pose negligible

or no risk to participants, many studies do not meet basic ethical standards required of clinical

trials of biophysical interventions, making application of their results ethically problematic.

There were no clear mechanisms of action nor any safety monitoring procedures described.

(Hobbins, 2005).

Further criticism related to RTC’s in studies of intercessory prayer claim to demonstrate

lack of adequate measure and control of exposure to intercessory prayer from others, which is

“likely to exceed IP…and whose magnitude is unknown.” This supplemental prayer is such an

unknown variable in the various studies and so significantly impact the attenuation of the

differences between treatment and control groups, that it is suggested the sample size is simply

too large to justify the study of IP. Additionally, it is conjectured that IP studies generally have a

lack of specificity regarding outcome variables, causing difficulties in multiple comparisons and

type I errors. (Sloan, Ramakrishnan, 2006).

In research designed to measure the effects of intercessory prayer on patients with

rheumatoid arthritis, methodological protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of

the National Institute for Healthcare Research. A cohort of forty female, white, retires were

5

included in the study after soliciting volunteers from an Arthritis/Pain Treatment Center,

additional rheumatology treatments centers, as well as using print advertising, letters, and

clinician contacts. Despite intention to include sixty participants in the study, insufficient

recruitment led to only forty-four being included initially and even less, ultimately, because of

the death (unrelated to the study) of two patients. Methodologies were detailed including

measurements of both proximal intercessory prayers, (PIP) where a patient had “hands” laid on

them during the intercessory prayer and for distant intercessory prayer, (DIP) for a specific three

day protocol. This type of intercessory prayer was measured in a trial group and control group

related to various forms of strength and functional physical assessments in the patients.

Investigators cited more limitations in their study by their own admission than they did points in

the primary and secondary analyses. Conclusions included positive short-term effects for patients

who had received direct proximal intercessory prayer while those receiving distant intercessory

prayer showed no benefit. Researchers suggest intercessory prayer as a therapeutic intervention

is very complex because it “combines the putative therapeutic agent of intercessory prayer with

additional, adjunctive effects, including provision of group education, mutual support,

counseling, and personal coping strategies that may have contributed to some of the clinical

benefits seen in the study.” (Matthews, Marlow, & McNutt 2000)

(Benson, Dusek, Sherwood, Lam, Bethea, Carpenter, Levitsky, Hill, Clem, Jain, Drumel,

Kopecky, Mueller, Marek, Rollins, Hibberd, 2006) studied the therapeutic effects of intercessory

prayer in cardiac bypass patients utilizing a randomized trial methodology of receiving or not

receiving intercessory prayer. The study evaluated whether receiving intercessory prayer or

being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after

coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The study included patients from six hospitals in the United

6

States randomly assigning patients to one of three groups. 604 received intercessory prayer after

being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer

also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory

prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Conclusions from the study revealed that

major-events and thirty day mortality were similar across the three groups. An additional

conclusion was that intercessory prayer had no effect on complication free recovery, but that

certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with higher incidences of

complications.

(Krucoff, Crater, and Lee, 2005) took investigators in this study to task, pointing out that

primary analytic plans also involve trade-offs, “as almost always the case in trial planning.” This

trio also called into question several study design questions including constraints on how

intercessory prayer was provided. Their criticism of the (Benson et.al., 2006) study concedes

excellent science “overall” and allows for “inevitable” criticism in clinical study. However, the

interpretation of the study results showing significantly worsened outcomes in one of the

experimental arms is vehemently challenged. Critics state “investigators take an almost casual

approach toward any explanation, stating only that it “may have been a chance finding.” It is

rather unusual to attribute a statistically significant result in the primary end point of a

prospective, multicenter randomized trial to “chance.” In fact, such attribution is antithetical to

the very definition of what α error and statistical certainty imply: that the worse outcomes are

almost certainly related to the therapy and not the play of chance. If the results had shown benefit

rather than harm, would we have read the investigators' conclusion that this effect “may have

been a chance finding,” with absolutely no other comments, insight, or even speculation?”

(Krucoff, Crater, & Lee, 2005). The initial study is all but condemned because the results were

7

counterintuitive and the data produced did support assumptions, which scrutinizes further studies

of this type for safety, if medical importance and knowledge in this arena is to be advanced.

Respondents to the criticism suggest in the Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine

that intercessory prayer is part of a “holistic therapy, acting on both physical and spiritual levels”

and the matter hypothesis warrants further investigation. (Ariel, Dvorkian, Steinman, Allswang,

Berman, Brenner, Silverman, 2008).

These studies and subsequent criticisms, although more recent, are significantly

unchanged from investigations nearly a decade earlier, where researchers attempted to apply

basic scientific methods and replicate results. Recognizing positive findings of a previously

published controlled trial of intercessory prayer had yet to be replicated, investigators designed

research to make this determination. (Harris, Gowda, Kolb, Strychacz, Vacek, Jones, Forker,

O’Keefe, McCallister, 1999). Length of stay and overall reduction of adverse events were

explored utilizing a randomized, controlled, double-blind, prospective, parallel-group, trial. This

study included nine hundred ninety consecutive newly admitted patients to a coronary care unit

at a private, university associated hospital. At the time of admission, participants were

randomized to receive remote intercessory prayer or to receive usual care which did not include

intercessory prayer. Outside intercessors prayed daily for four consecutive weeks for those

assigned to that particular group and were supplied with the patient’s first name. Intercessors did

not know nor did they ever meet the patients. Additionally, patients did not know they were

being prayed for. A blinded retrospective chart review of the medical course from CCU

admission to hospital discharge was summarized in a CCU course score. Compared to the usual

care group, the group that received intercessory prayer had lower mean weighted and unweighted

CCU course scores. The lengths of CCU and hospital stays were not different between the

8

groups in the study. Remote intercessory prayer was, however, associated with lower CCU

course scores indicating that intercessory prayer “may be an effective adjunct to standard

medical care.”

Both the design of the (Harris, et.al, 1999) study and findings were questioned severely.

(Hoover, Margolick, 2002) Other researchers concurred that applicable therapeutic method

could not be empirically verified, however, investigators offered that active prayer within the

framework of a doctor-patient relationship can strengthen the patient's optimism and activate the

body's healing resources. (Hefti, Koenig, 2007)

Conclusions drawn from a pilot test involving patients entering treatment for alcohol

abuse or dependence did not demonstrate positive benefits from intercessory prayer. (Walker,

Tonigan, Miller, Croner, Kahlich, 1997) Forty patients who consented to participate in the study

after being admitted to a public substance abuse treatment facility were randomized to receive or

not receive intercessory prayer. This study was a double-blind experimental design. It also

included outside volunteers who prayed for those subjects in the intercessory prayer group.

Assessments were made at baseline, three months, and six months. There were no differences

found on alcohol consumption between the intervention and nonintervention groups. Compared

with a normative group treated at the same facility, the intervention group experienced a delay in

drinking reduction. However, those participants in the study who reported at baseline that a

family member or friend was already praying for them were found to be drinking significantly

more at six months than those who reported they were unaware anyone was praying for them.

The only factor from the study related to prayer and less alcohol consumption by subjects was

when the participant themselves exhibited frequency of prayer on their own behalf; and this only

9

at two and three months. Researchers conceded that “prayer may be a complex phenomenon

with many interacting variables.”

Similar findings were revealed in a study involving severe head injury patients. There

were no demonstrable positive effects for intercessory prayer on behalf of the head injury

patients, yet patients with their own prayer habits recovered better. (Vannemreddy, Bryan,

Nanda, 2009)

Analogous results were also shown in the study of intercessory prayer on a population of

patients suffering from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency

syndrome. (Astin, Stone, Abrams, Moore, Couey, Buscemi, Targ, 2006) Intercessory prayer did

not appear to improve selected clinical outcomes in HIV patients.

Being termed a “non-local” manifestation of consciousness and from an emerging world

view in philosophy, it is argued that the mind can function beyond the individual and is not

constrained by time and distance. (Harding, 2001) Proposed as a definition of prayer, this study

places intercessory prayer with distant healing and unexplained discoveries. This “group” of

phenomena is shown to have positive effect on humans, animals, bacteria, and germinating

seeds. Investigators pose the question to scientists and physicians, through citation of cases, are

not curative methods being withheld from patients if these methodological therapies are not

included in treatments?

Foundations for studies of this type are explored in context that all domains are

epistemological assumptions. (Schwartz, Dossey, 2010) Investigators suggest that periodic

reassessment of these assumptions is crucial because they influence how experimental outcomes

are interpreted. Research is presented from a collection of disciplines to support why the these

10

issues of linkage, belief, and intention are so central to a successful, accurate, and meaningful

study outcome.

Arguments both for and against the philosophical basis and pitfalls of conducting clinical

trials involving the testing of the efficacy of intercessory prayer relative to its potential place

academic medicine have been made in the past. (Halperin, 2001)

Intercessory prayer was used as an illustrative case to highlight systematic scientific blind

spots in the institutions of evidence based medicine. (Giacomini, 2009) Suggesting that

medicine, even evidenced based medicine, is theory-based at its core, cultivating greater capacity

to address the crucial role of theory in both the generation and use of experimental evidence is

needed.

Additional investigations reveal the scientific rigor necessary to advance study in this

subject area is explored as a “research journey”, with exploration of the steps in the development

and implementation of clinical research to scientifically examine a phenomenon. Sequential steps

are detailed and explained from ideological conception through utilization of concept analysis

and literature review to provide concrete foundation for the study. Both qualitative and

quantitative pilot studies are developed to investigate intercessory prayer and how IP can

successfully be incorporated into clinical research. (Rath, 2009).

Exploration to seek descriptions of spiritual care received by patients and families during

serious illness, and test whether the provider and the type of care is associated with satisfaction

included twenty-one different spiritual care activities, including intercessory prayer. (Hanson,

Usher, Dobbs, Williams, Rawlings, Daalemann, 2008) Intercessory prayer was the least

common spiritual activity identified.

11

More generalized reviews of literature including the role of religion in health outcomes

have been conducted, with the inclusion of the specific role of intercessory prayer as a

therapeutic intervention. (Coruh, Pugh, Mulligan, 2005)

The effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer have even been studied. (Leibovici,

2001) In a university hospital setting, all 3,393 patients whose bloodstream infection was

detected between 1990 and 1996 were included in the investigation. In July, 2000, patients were

randomized to a control group and intervention group. This was a double-blind designed study

with a retroactive intervention. A retroactive remote intercessory prayer was said for the well

being and full recovery of the intervention group. The methodology measured three factors

including: the mortality rate in hospital; length of stay in hospital; duration of fever of the

patient. Interestingly enough, the mortality rates were less, and duration of hospital stay and

fever were less for those in the intervention group. Because of the statistical conclusions,

inclusion of retroactive intercessory prayer is recommended for use in clinical practice. Studies

of this and similar nature studies are deeply flawed. (Shermer, 2004)

This study produced warnings for both “a cautious approach” to the effects of retroactive

intercessory prayer (Thornett, 2002). The outcome produced flagrant criticism and even subtle

sarcasm with reactions like, “you cannae break the laws of physics, Captain.” (Hopkins, 2002;

Black, 2002) It also produced varying amounts of denigration for using “informed consent.”

(Price, 2002) Less spirited responses to the study offered the observation that “competing

interests on religious conviction or spirituality” could be an important factor in studies of this

nature. (Lagnando, 2002) Supporters of the investigation responded with comments such as,

“hope should never be squashed by being told things cannot happen.” (Brownnutt, 2002)

12

Using a triple-blind, randomized study design, and in an effort to cancel any positive

effects related to positive expectations that might have confounded findings, a pilot study was

conducted to investigate if intercessory prayer would have an effect on forty children suffering

from psychiatric disorders. Half of the patients were randomly assigned to the intervention

control group and the other half to the control group. Four of the forty participants were

ultimately excluded from the investigation because of incomplete data. The chief investigator

assigned a committed group of six people to pray once per week for the patients in the

intervention group. They were blind to the identity and condition of the child for whom they

were praying. It is interesting to note that ethical concerns were considered prior to the project,

but the study was approved as an audit project because negative effects were considered

negligible. Neither the patients nor anyone associated with patients were aware that was prayer

was occurring. The outcome of the study revealed no additional benefits for patients who

received intercessory prayer compared to those who received treatment as usual. The ethical

questions raised by lack of knowledge or consent of patients, parents of the young patients, or

associated with the patients, as to their inclusion in an investigation of this nature, was disposed

of by the authors suggesting the treatment was “non-interventionist” (Mathai, Bourne, 2004).

Methodological approaches were especially strong in a factorial study designed to

explore the effect of intercessory prayer, positive visualization, and outcome expectancy on a

wide range of medical and psychological measures in critically ill patients. (Matthews, Conti,

and Sireci, 2001) The design, a 2 x 3 (expectancy x treatment) factorial study included 95 male

and female hemodialysis patients with end-stage renal disease. Participants were all from an out-

patient clinic in Miami, Florida, who were randomly assigned to one of six treatment conditions.

A total of twenty different measures were used to assess the overall well-being of participants.

13

Ten of the measures were medically based and ten were psychologically based. Control for pre-

treatment of differences between groups utilized an analysis of covariance. The unique design of

this study allowed for comparisons not seemingly common in other projects. Participants who

expected to receive intercessory prayer reported feelingly significantly better than participants

who expected to receive positive visualization. Statistically, no other significant effects or

interactions were revealed for either intercessory prayer or positive visualization on the

remaining dependent variables. All dependent measures failed to indicate even a small

magnitude of effect for intercessory prayer when contrasted with expectancy on the medical or

psychological variables. Conclusions drawn from the research revealed that the effects of

intercessory prayer and transpersonal positive visualization could not be distinguished from the

effect of expectancy. These findings indicated the two interventions do not appear to be effective

treatments.

Intercessory prayer, along with music, imagery, and touch were used as interventional

adjuncts in a randomized study to examine noetic therapies-healing practices. A multi-center,

prospective trial was designed to explore two such practices. This was based on data from a pilot

study that noetic therapy healing practices that are not mediated by tangible elements-can reduce

preprocedural distress and might affect outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary

intervention. (Krucoff, Crater, Gallup, Blankenship, Cuffe, Guarneri, Krieger, Kshettry, Morris,

Oz, Pichard, Sketch, Koenig, Mark, Lee, 2005)

This study was used as a base to further evaluate the effects of intercessory prayer, stress

management, imagery, touch therapy, and standard therapy on mood in patients awaiting

percutaneous interventions for unstable coronary syndromes. (Seskevich, Crater, Lane, Krucof,

2004) A total of 150 patients were randomized to one of the five treatment conditions. Thirty

14

minute treatment sessions immediately before the cardiac intervention included administration of

stress management, imagery, and touch therapy. Intercessory prayer was not necessarily

contemporaneous with these treatments. A set of visual analog scales measured mood in patients

before and after treatment for a similar length of time. Analysis of complete data from 108

patients showed that stress management, imagery, and touch therapy all produced reductions in

reported worry, as compared with standard therapy, whereas remote intercessory prayer had no

effect on mood. The results suggest that at least some noetic therapies may have beneficial

effects on mood in the course of medical and surgical interventions. Further study was suggested

given the relatively low cost, limited potential for adverse effects, and the feasibility even in the

hectic environment of a coronary intensive care unit.

Another closely aligned ideological study incorporating intercessory prayer in

combination with other non-contact therapeutic touch was conducted on the healing rate of full

thickness human dermal wounds. (Wirth, Barrett, 1994) Reiki and LeShan healers in addition to

intercessor prayer healers were utilized in a protocol that incorporated an integral biofeedback,

guided imagery, and visualization/relaxation component in order to assess the influence of

psycho-physiological factors on the healing process. The randomized, double-blind, within

subject, crossover design included two mimic healers in the experiment. Treatment groups

showed significant results compared to the control group, however in the opposite manner than

anticipated. Factors related to the non-significance obtained could have been the natural healing

of the mimic practitioners, or perhaps carry over effects from the Reiki, LeShan, and/or

intercessory prayer healers.

15

The methodological designs in the (Wirth, Barrett, 1994) study were closely examined

through six different factors to provide potential contributing correlative factors for the

differential results obtained. (Wirth, Richardson, Eidelman, 1996)

Intercessory prayer was not included in a study of integrative approaches to the

vegetative state of patients due to lack of available information and evidence. (Schiff, Kim,

Maizes, 2005)

Another complicated design experiment was introduced to test intercessory prayer

efficacy on anxiety levels in volunteer undergraduate psychology students. (Tloczynski,

Fritzsch, 2002) Eight participants were prayed for in a multiple baseline across subjects design.

This included a one week baseline for all subjects followed by the independent variable being

introduced sequentially every two weeks until all subjects except two were prayed for. This

remaining pair maintained baseline. An investigator prayed for each subject during a seven

week period using a non direct method of prayer where no specific requests were made. All

subjects completed the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale on a daily basis for five weeks.

Additionally, participants completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory daily for

seven weeks. Analysis of the data showed significant reduction in anxiety scores on both tests

for participants who received prayer, but not for those not prayed for. Investigators offered that,

the mean anxiety scores “somewhat” matched the sequential timing of when subjects received

prayer.

Objective measures related to the belief in the power of prayer for others, was the focus

for a study involving 496 volunteers. (O’Laoire, 1997) The amount of prayer on behalf of

subjects was significantly different and focused relative to similar studies. Ninety agents prayed

for 406 patients in a randomized, double-blind, controlled design. Photos and names of the

16

subjects were used as a focus for those praying. Each agent prayed daily for fifteen minutes for

twelve weeks. Five pretest and posttest objective measures were taken and six posttest subjective

measures were assessed. Subjects improved “significantly” on eleven measures. Agents

improved “significantly” on ten measures. The significant positive correlation in this

experiment, and how it differs from previous studies, is the focus on the amount of prayer

offered by agents in the experiment. Agents had significantly better scores than did subjects on

all objective measures. Improvement on four objective measures was significantly related to

subjects' belief in the power of prayer for others. Improvement was significantly related to

subjects' conviction concerning whether they had been assigned to a control or an experimental

group.

Research on intercessory prayer and its potential effect on pregnancy rates in women

being treated with in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer have been conducted utilizing strict

scientific methodologies and participants from several countries. (Cha, Wirth, 2005) In a

double-blind, randomized clinical trial, neither patients nor providers were informed about the

intervention. This should raise obvious concerns about informed consent. Statisticians and

investigators were masked until all data had been collected and the clinical outcomes were

known. The 219 patients were in a hospital in Seoul, Korea. Investigators were at a tertiary

hospital in the United States while intercessory prayer agents were located in Canada, Australia,

and the United States. The main measure outcome was the clinical pregnancy rates in the two

groups of women which were randomized after stratification of variables in two groups, distant

intercessory prayer vs. no intercessory prayer. After clinical pregnancies were known, the data

were unmasked to assess the effects of intercessory prayer. Pregnancy rates for the IP group was

double that of the non-IP group, 50% vs. 26%. Implantation rates were also double for the IP

17

group vs. the non-IP group, 16.3% vs. 8%. Investigators suggested the data should be interpreted

as preliminary.

Broadly defined, the use of alternative forms of healing for serious illness and other

sickness, including intercessory prayer, as a therapeutic intervention have received mixed

reviews. (Townsend, Kladder, Ayele, Mulligan, 2002) While challenged as an effective

methodology in some instances, and even ethically in others, intercessory prayer would

seemingly be a viable therapeutic intervention for the same reasons many other non-contact

therapeutic adjuncts might be utilized. The costs are minimal and the potential harm to both the

intercessor and recipient of the prayers of the intercessor seem minimal, physically, emotionally,

mentally, and spiritually.

Ethical dilemmas are created when patients in studies are not fully aware of the nature of

the study. In several instances, the literature revealed subjects were not treated with the respect

merited by established ethical research standards. This should certainly be a top priority in

further studies utilizing intercessory prayer as a therapeutic intervention. Human participants

must be capable of making an informed decision in terms of participating in a study. Vulnerable

populations, which could be many groups when dealing with illnesses and debilitations, are to be

protected. Examples of groups unduly exposed in the research were children, elderly, pregnant

women and fetuses. It would appear that subjects were not exposed to unhealthy levels of

psychological or emotional harm, however, that might not accurately be able to be determined,

hence the reason for the rationale of ethics in scientific research.

Religious concerns in studies of this nature also create strong debate. Dynamics in

research of this type might include items like an intercessor praying to Muhammad, the god of

Islam, while for example, the patient, might be a Christian and worships another deity entirely.

18

The questions of mutual exclusivity between religion and science might be the strongest of all

concerns in research of this type.

Limited evidential values were exposed in many studies, especially “preliminary”

investigations. Application of true scientific methods is easily questionable in other projects.

For example, what measure is set for the term “significant” healing that might have reportedly

occurred by the adjunct of intercessory prayer? The duration of healing, the medical condition

treated, and the control intervention used, are primary concerns reviewing studies of this nature.

Insufficient sample sizes and the likelihood of type II errors make the categorization of results

problematic. (Abbott, 2000)

There is great diversity in what has been studied concerning the impact of intercessory

prayer and how the potential effect has or has not been measured. It is quite apparent that many

trials had methodological shortcomings. Further investigations could benefit from an approach

of pragmatic trials and distant intercessory prayers offered on behalf of those with well-defined,

measureable illnesses. Research might also benefit from a collaboration of religious scholars,

medical scholars, and scientific research scholars. Advantage and credibility would be gained

for investigations into this subject matter if researchers were scholars in more than one of these

areas. Methodologies, as well theologies, would have foundational means by which, and through

which, meaningful studies could be conducted. This approach might help address the question of

whether a topic of this nature can even be studied in an empirical fashion to satisfy the rigors of

scientific research. With the medical field fully engaged in study of this type, ethical challenges

might be more readily recognized and addressed by the nature of the discipline.

19

20