This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The recent study of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on patient outcome by Harris et al¹ appears to have both philosophical and study design issues that need further clarification.

To an average reader like myself, the statements that "we have not proven that God answers prayer or that God even exists. It was the intercessory prayer and not the existence of God that was tested here,'' seem a contradiction. If the intent of the study was to determine whether God answers prayer, then God's will and His existence were also being tested de facto, since the prayer was directed to God for the healing of 466 patients in the prayer group.

People of all faiths have been praying since the dawn of civilization on this planet. For those who truly believe in God's existence, the question why people get sick and how they are healed has a very different . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLES

Prayer and Medical Science: A Commentary on the Prayer Study by Harris et al and a Response to Critics
Larry Dossey
Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(12):1735-1738.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit
William S. Harris, Manohar Gowda, Jerry W. Kolb, Christopher P. Strychacz, James L. Vacek, Philip G. Jones, Alan Forker, James H. O'Keefe, and Ben D. McCallister
Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(19):2273-2278.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT