Ask Darwinists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr.Trax
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 63
  • Views Views 9K
I apologize PA, just a joke that failed and not a personal attack. I definitely enjoy your take on things.

I'm just saying that something that follows physical properties may not necessarily need an "intelligence" behind it.

The example was that I view that water turns to ice without a intelligent creator telling it to. It just follows the basic physical laws (which you believe were set by god and I beleive were set by natural forces).

Thanks.
 
Pick up a deck of cards.
Deal one.
Do you know there was less than a 2% chance that you would get that card?
Deal another one.
Now there is less than a .04% chance that you would get those two cards in that order.
Deal another one.
The chance of getting that sequence of three is less than a .0008%.
Deal the forth.
The chance of getting those four in a row is about 1 in 6.5 million.

You soon realize that there is almost no chance this could happen.
The only explanation is god.
 
I apologize PA, just a joke that failed and not a personal attack. I definitely enjoy your take on things.

I'm just saying that something that follows physical properties may not necessarily need an "intelligence" behind it.

The example was that I view that water turns to ice without a intelligent creator telling it to. It just follows the basic physical laws (which you believe were set by god and I beleive were set by natural forces).

Thanks.

Thank you...I too appreciate that most of your replies/debates are politic...
Perhaps you are just the atheist to change my mind about atheism? seldom have I run across one that wasn't riddled with bitter and sardonic undertones and absolute contempt for theists as if they were the only handful elite Intelligentsia, while the rest of us revel in a cloacae!

cheers!
 
Pick up a deck of cards.
Deal one.
Do you know there was less than a 2% chance that you would get that card?
Deal another one.
Now there is less than a .04% chance that you would get those two cards in that order.
Deal another one.
The chance of getting that sequence of three is less than a .0008%.
Deal the forth.
The chance of getting those four in a row is about 1 in 6.5 million.

You soon realize that there is almost no chance this could happen.
The only explanation is god.

Peace wilbur..
A deck card can only have relevance to your odds to a las vegas winning or some random play amidst comrades on a thursday night, after all that is what they were designed for (by man) for the purpose of gamble or idle play.. and can hardly be an object of comparison for the human condition and why life is as we know it..

cheers
 
What is the truth according to you?



You ought to discuss this with your pal ranma1/2 on PM, so your opinions are in concert, then let us know how 'evolution was guided and by whom'..




You should help Dr. Trax better understand evolution by extending yourself based on your unplumbed cognition of the sciences, instead of citing wikipedia and resorting to name calling? and also so that your replies have some relevance to the matter he presented and not just random carpet bombing....what do you think?



cheers!

Thank you sister!:peace:You answered my reply!
 
Dr Tax never realized he has no idea what evolution is or what evolution scientists, biologists ect.. think or realize.
Dr Tax should read about evolution.
Dr Tax should then have a better understanding.
And of course Dr Tax qouting me but making no comment about what i said make me think Dr Tax is a bot.

And you ranma1/2 ....whatever you are,please do not act like wild animal:mmokay:,becouse you are the one who do not understand evolution,not me!So be patient and I will reply.
Inshallah I will put some more truthfull things about Creation,to understand those Atheists!

And please do not put my name on your posts anymore!!!:D
 
Pick up a deck of cards.
Deal one.
Do you know there was less than a 2% chance that you would get that card?
Deal another one.
Now there is less than a .04% chance that you would get those two cards in that order.
Deal another one.
The chance of getting that sequence of three is less than a .0008%.
Deal the forth.
The chance of getting those four in a row is about 1 in 6.5 million.

You soon realize that there is almost no chance this could happen.
The only explanation is god.

This is so boring, get a few billion people and give them a red card and a yellow card, now get 1 person to randomly show a red or yellow after asking everyone to guess which colour is just about to show.

After a few hundred turns, how many people would have correctly guessed the random sequence? What are the odds of correctly guessing the right combination 200 times. Fact is, some would correctly guess way in excess of 200 because it;s a numbers game.

This thread is crap, all everyone has done is talk probabilities.

Let's get back to the first stupid point:

Dr Dax -
1.- Is there a single intermediate form fossil among all the 100 million or so that have been unearthed to date?

- No, there is not. Nobody can say there is, because every fossil evolutionists have to date proposed as a "missing link" either turned out to be a hoax or else was removed from the literature because it had been distortedly interpreted.

What do you mean by "Intermediate" fossil, do you mean like a fish with rabbits feet or a rabbit with half a set of gills!!!!!!!!!!

Purest Ambrosia. - Your 'talk origins speaks of 'transition' fossil, that is not an intermediate!

So, you seem to suggest what a transitional fossil is not, how do you fancy going further and describe what is????

Cheers
 
What do you mean by "Intermediate" fossil, do you mean like a fish with rabbits feet or a rabbit with half a set of gills!!!!!!!!!!

The general picture concealed by evolutionists

Evolutionists attempt to give the impression that fossils actually support the idea of evolution. Yet the “missing link” concept is one that has been invented solely in the light of the needs of the theory of evolution and has no counterpart in the fossil record itself. The lack of fossil links alleged to connect species to one another has been known ever since Darwin’s time. Excavations by paleontologists since Darwin’s day have also failed to resolve this situation, which represents such a grave impasse for the theory of evolution and, on the contrary, have further confirmed the absence of any missing links among living groups.

E. R. Leach, author of the book Rethinking Anthropology, wrote this in his article in Nature:

Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. (E. R. Leach; Nature, 293: 19, 1981)

A. S. Romer, one of the most eminent paleontologists of his time, said this on the subject:

"Links" are missing just where we most fervently desire them [to point to a transition between species] and it is all too probable that many "links" will continue to be missing. (A. S. Romer, in Genetics, Paleontology and Evolution, 1963, p. 114)

David B. Kitts, professor of geology and the history of science at the University of Oklahoma admits the absence of the intermediate forms required by the theory of evolution:

Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. (David B. Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467)

The picture that emerges from the fossil record is completely compatible with creation. The record reveals that living things appeared suddenly and lived for long periods of time without undergoing any change at all. These facts can clearly be seen in an evaluation of evolution’s fossil impasse by the American paleontologist R. Wesson in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection. Stating that the gaps in the record are real, Wesson goes on to say that the absence of a record of any evolutionary branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static for long periods. Species and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but are replaced by another, and change is usually abrupt. (R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45)

Some 250,000 fossil species have been collected to date, and there is absolutely no trace of intermediate forms in any of them. Evolutionists are behaving irrationally and unscientifically by ignoring this and embarking on campaigns of missing link propaganda.




The intermediate form claims that evolutionists produce solely by looking at bones is no more than vague conjecture. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the molecular biologist Michael Denton makes the situation very clear:

Because soft biology of extinct groups can never be known with any certainty then obviously the status of even the most convincing intermediates is bound to be insecure. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books: London, 1985, p. 180)

Even the most convincing appearing intermediate forms for evolutionists can subsequently let them down very badly. One excellent example of this is the Coelacanth phenomenon.



Evolutionists’ missing link propaganda actually works against their own claims

Whenever a discovery is depicted as a missing link, the evolutionist media always give the impression that a most extraordinary finding has been made, whereas this actually conflicts with their claims regarding the truth of evolution.

Were the theory of evolution true, then the geological strata would be full of fossil intermediates, and their numbers would be far greater than that of all the species living today or that ever lived in the past. Therefore, the discovery of missing links would be such a routine matter that it would have no news value at all.

Alternatively, if, as evolutionists claim, there were as much evidence for evolution as there is for the force of gravity, then reporting on missing link discoveries would be as nonsensical as reporting on a stone thrown into the air falling back to the ground. In the same way that we would regard a news report along the lines of “We threw a stone into the air and it actually fell back to Earth” as utterly insignificant, so we would regard reports reading “Paleontologists have discovered a new missing link” as equally insignificant. In short, if evolution were a “fact,” there would be no need for any missing link propaganda at all.
 
sinek.jpg
;D
 
So, you seem to suggest what a transitional fossil is not, how do you fancy going further and describe what is????

Cheers

It is incumbent upon he/she who makes a statement to stand by it and support it with some plausible evidence. I have approached the topic to my sphere of expertise, using probability and molecular biology.

If there is something in the sciences that you know, that is not apparent to the rest of us, perhaps you can bring it forth and explain it on the same molecular level as opposed to cased fossils in glass boxes arranged next to one another bearing small name tags and citing same genetic elements in different isometric arrangements. Frankly this is the formula of this universe, the same way we use 26 letters in the alphabet to write seemingly endless rhetoric!

cheers
 
OK, I asked you what you thought an intermediate species would look like. You respond with crap. As I said, if you throw enough crap then you create an illusion.

Here is an example;

The general picture concealed by evolutionists

E. R. Leach, author of the book Rethinking Anthropology, wrote this in his article in Nature:.

Just to clarify, the author of "Rethinking Anthropology" was not discussing physical evolution in that book and makes no comment/challenge to evolution nor transitional species what so ever. I even have the contents of that book:

  1. Rethinking Anthropology.
  2. Jinghpaw Kinship Terminology.
  3. The structual implications of matrilateral cross cousin marriage.
  4. Polyandry, inheritence and the definition of marriage.
  5. Aspects of bridewealth and marriage stability
  6. 2 essays concerning the symbolic representation of time

Now we have clarified that the book mentions absolutely zippo about transitional species/fossils, lets now move swiftly on to your blatant misrepresentation of the truth. AKA your crap.

Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. (E. R. Leach; Nature, 293: 19, 1981)

It's a real blatant deciept to misrepresent the above. If you go back a couple of paragraphs you will find Leach saying:

The evolution of species from earlier species is not seriously questioned; nor is the theory that most species are specially adapted to the environmental niche in which they are encountered. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand just how they came to be that way. "
[Leach, 1981, p. 20]


According to your reference, thier is no conflict with evolution other than the theory is more complex than once supposed. Leach meant that some parts of evolution are still debatable, not the theory itself.. There was no discussion of whether or not there are transitional fossils, but that some transitional sequences are still incomplete. He was leading into a section about how the public has an image of anthropologists being more concerned with origins rather than comparative sociobiology

I ask you once more, in reference to your first point. What would you consider a transitional species?

PurestAmbrosia - It is incumbent upon he/she who makes a statement to stand by it and support it with some plausible evidence. I have approached the topic to my sphere of expertise, using probability and molecular biology.

Why the heck would we use probability and molecular biology to discuss the definition of what would be considered an Intermediate form fossil.

It appears to me that you are both running away from the very first point, you have clearly indicated what does NOT constitute an intermediate form fossil. apparantly, you both currently look incapable of defining what you would consider to be an "Intermediate form fossil".
 
Last edited:
Nicely done root.

Let be a lesson to others. Careful when you lie and post misinformation, someone may take you up on it.
 
Why the heck would we use probability and molecular biology to discuss the definition of what would be considered an Intermediate form fossil.

It appears to me that you are both running away from the very first point, you have clearly indicated what does NOT constitute an intermediate form fossil. apparantly, you both currently look incapable of defining what you would consider to be an "Intermediate form fossil".

An intermediate by my definition though I personally don't wish to tread on someone else's territory; when I have already presented this from a different angle, but for the sake of entertainment , would be a Coelacanth http://www.dinofish.com/
that which was once thought by evolutionists to have evolved into amphibians, land vertebrates, including man, to show a sliver of an evolutionarily find, lungs, pseudopods in its evolved self some where down the line, and not be found swimming near the Comoros or the canary isles. Some 400,000,000 million yrs down the line...

I guess I need something more than drawings of fish in series evolving into man to make a distinction that even you can understand!

However, that wasn't the point of interest in my post, which you wish to tie in to some other haphazardly, nor do I want to descend into this adolescent style of word play, for the mere purpose of having another atheist stroke your ---!

My point was made on the first page [the 'long post'] .. the odds of 'evolution' happening as many of you describe...You are simply stagnating on the one point that you feel will give you some leverage ( although personally I can't reconcile how?) a ' quip counter rebuttal' given to us by the fellow who enjoys wiki more than reading is a legitimate debate.. this isn't a match on the tele, there is nothing to score here!

This is about the volitional assembly of the smallest number of aa possible, (12-16 amino acids) smaller than a modern day virus, as to allow for life' to propogate (evolve), to more complex forms, given the age of the earth 'favorable living conditions' if/when made possible by climate and the sun, for that 'random' progressive speciation, life, sentience, complex forms with higher functions......

He (the author) in very lay man's terms and in a nutshell for those too lazy to read, is trying to tell you that if it took 1.1 billion years for that first 'random' cell to assemble ' to which he designated a variable, using the earliest known fossil refer to .edu webpage using carbon dating (see previous page), averaging in the age of the earth ( 6 billion yrs) to which he designated another variable, to the conditions of the sun which would allow life on earth to flourish to which he designated other variables and so on and so on spanning all the intricate structures in a simple cell from lipid bilayers to mitochondrias, to conclude that in the end, it wouldn't in fact give you the sort of species or organisms we have today.. he extended the life span of the earth by another few billions and it still doesn't account for the kind of complex organisms we have today or evolution as some of you would describe...

'intermediates', just doesn't pack a mean punch in the scheme of things.. to be quite honest, it is a jejune attempt to deflect from the actual debate.. any person that gives this any measure of thought, not even in the mathematical sense, but in a molecular biology sense, will find a great deal of absurdities, unaccounted for, but arbitrarily plastered together to make a moot point...

Show me one mutation or break in DNA, that has caused anything other than a truncated, non-functional, no change at all or even cancer as in some very famous translocations, to give you this fantastic, positive 'speciation', do it using modern science, 'vectors in vivo, or in vitro' by way of a (retrovirus or a liposome) and make some contrast and reflection on the years it took for such a positive change to and 'spontaneously' occur, you'll then make a believer out of many...

Until then you hold on to your beliefs, because again, that is really what it comes down to. A theory you hold as if of biblical importance, and flash around as if to make theists cower in a corner with their ignorance?!


I am done with this topic.. I have absolutely nothing to prove, and it doesn't make much of a difference to my life whatsoever, what jack and his bag of seeds disseminated from the beanstalk to give life to our world, or how your pet rock spontaneously regenerated into a pithecanthropus erectus---Anyone can theorize, and that it shall remain until proven!

can anyone squat and s*** out a theory? I think so.. I see it every day on various blogs, by various 'humanists' -- we might even have some on board here splitting a zero?!

cheers
 
Last edited:
According to Newsweek, 1987 survey, not even .14% of scientists are creationists. That means that not even 1% of scientists are creationists! 1

So obviously, the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution.
99.86%!!!
Now I could trust some person who posts 10 silly points, or I can trust 99.86% of American scientists who believe staunchly in evolution.

Now I know that scientists have thought about these 10 small issues. Certainly, they did not just ignore it.. Most scientists spend most of their lives devoting thousands of hours of studying! I would certainly trust 99.86% of scientists over a few people who think that these 10 points just totally crush evolution(even though these 10 points have been refuted.)

Here is a question.. If there was absolutely NO religion in this world; no islam, no christianity, no judaism, nothing: would people STILL deny evolution?

Or, if islam taught evolution instead of creationism, would people like purestambrosia be posting these pro creationist posts, and would you, purestambrosia, be a muslim? Or would you deny islam since you would be a creationist and islam evolution?!

Most creationists would not be creationists if it were not for their religion. I mean how many atheists do you know that believe we are descendent's of two people?!!

Sorry, but I will trust the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution, then over a very tiny number of scientists that do not even equal a fifth of 1 percent!

1 - Newsweek magazine, June 29, 1987, Page 23.
 
3rd the only the i would disagree with your posts is your apeal to popularity.
What makes evo valid is the evidence not how many believe it. (of course they mostly accept it due to the evidence)
 
3rd the only the i would disagree with your posts is your apeal to popularity.
What makes evo valid is the evidence not how many believe it. (of course they mostly accept it due to the evidence)

Yes, and who studies the evidence? Who presents the evidence and devotes their lives to it? Scientists!!

We learn what we know from Professors. These professors learn from scientists(or are scientists themselves.) these students might one day b teachers, who teach it. I mean it is like a chain, and when it comes down to it, we get our belief of evolution from scientists who have studied it by studying, and presenting the evidence.

I obviously agree that we should never base something off the status quo. That is just stupid. and in some cases, the status quo is wrong (like Ameirca being 70% Christian.. The status quo is obviously christianity, but you and me laugh when we read some of the christian beliefs!)

All I was saying is that I trust the 99.86% of scientists who believe in evolution, much over the small 700 american scientists who do not. :)
 
Or, if islam taught evolution instead of creationism, would people like purestambrosia be posting these pro creationist posts, and would you, purestambrosia, be a muslim? Or would you deny islam since you would be a creationist and islam evolution?!
.

I have no idea what psycho-babble you are speaking about today?..You should take the time to change your religious affiliation before you write so I can take you a bit seriousely?

I have made my argument using known science, not emotion, if you have a rebuttal for what is presented then by all means.. I am not going to change my opinion, because I am angry that if God doesn't accept my sexual deviation, then he can't exist, he is a meanie (pls grow up)!

If you have something of substance to impart then pls bring it forth, I don't enjoy the degenerative quality some of you bring to these threads!

further I have made ample testaments on this forum, that whether evolution is true or not it wouldn't make a speck of a difference, the latest was under the 'muslim evolutionists' thread, if you can get them to 'unbin it' You'd read it for yourself!

here are a few stats different than yours, if following the herd, where ever the cool spot maybe for the month is your niche..but pls take it else where and stop wasting my time

cheers

Poll: Doctors favor evolution theory





A national survey of 1,472 physicians indicates more than half -- 63 percent -- believe the theory of evolution over that of intelligent design.
The responses were analyzed according to religious affiliation.

When asked whether they agree more with intelligent design or evolution, 88 percent of Jewish doctors and 60 percent of Roman Catholic physicians said they agree more with evolution, while 54 percent of Protestant doctors agreed more with intelligent design.

When asked whether intelligent design has legitimacy as science, 83 percent of Jewish doctors and 51 percent of Catholic doctors said they believe intelligent design is simply "a religiously inspired pseudo-science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation." But 63 percent of Protestant doctors said intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific speculation."

The study was conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research at The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City and HCD Research in Flemington, N.J.

The May 13-15 poll had a margin of error plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Copyright 2005 by United Press International
» Next Article in General Science: It's a bug's life: MIT team tells moving tale

http://www.physorg.com/news6847.html


I didn't know that the percentage of who belives in what is how we go on making up our mind.. but thanks for being a living example of 'herd mentality'


cheers!
 
I'll ask a mod to remove the extraneous posts that have nothing to do with 'evolution' but since some members believe that God has no place in science or amongst scientists I thought I'd post a few articles for a reality check!


Religion, spirituality, and end of life care
Christina M. Puchalski, MD, MS
Rabbi Elliot Dorff, PhD
Balaji N Hebbar, PhD
Iman Yahya Hendi, MA
Kusala Bhikshu, BA
Edward O'Donnell, MA



INTRODUCTION — Spiritual, religious, and cultural beliefs and practices play a significant role in the lives of patients who are seriously ill and dying. In addition to providing an ethical foundation for clinical decision making, spiritual and religious traditions provide a conceptual framework for understanding the human experience of death and dying, and the meaning of illness and suffering [1].

The importance of spiritual and religious beliefs in coping with illness, suffering, and dying is supported by clinical studies as well as individual narrative descriptions [1-9]. Most patients derive comfort from their religious/spiritual beliefs as they face the end of life, and some find reassurance through a belief in continued existence after physical death [10]. However, religious concerns can also be a source of pain and spiritual distress, for example, if a patient feels punished or abandoned by God [11].

A common goal for the dying patient, family members, and the health care professional is for a meaningful dying experience, in which loss is framed in the context of a life legacy [12]. Such an experience includes support for the patient's suffering, the avoidance of undesired artificial prolongation of life, involvement of family and/or close friends, resolution of remaining life conflicts, and attention to spiritual issues that surround the meaning of illness and death [13].

Clinicians can and should help dying patients find meaning and hope through recognition of the spiritual dimension of their experience [6]. Although they may lack the expertise to address spiritual concerns in depth, healthcare professionals should be able to discuss spirituality with their patients and identify those in spiritual distress so that appropriate referral may be made to spiritual care providers [11]. These include chaplains, community-based clergy, spiritual directors, pastoral counselors, and culturally based healers.

Here we will provide an overview of religion, spirituality, and spiritual care in patients who are terminally ill. This is followed by a brief summary of the major religious faiths and how their beliefs impact decision making and coping as patients approach the end of life.

RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY — The terms religion and spirituality are not interchangeable. The term "religion" usually refers to an organized faith system of beliefs, practices, rituals, and language that characterize a community searching for transcendent meaning in a particular way, generally based upon belief in a divine being [14]. Religion represents only one of many forms of spiritual expression.

Broadly defined, spirituality is that which gives ultimate meaning and purpose in an individual's life. Although spirituality can be expressed in religious beliefs and practices, it can also more broadly include a relationship with God/Divine or a higher power, or with family, or with cultural communities. People may be in touch with their spirituality through formal religious rituals or sacraments, or through interaction with nature, humanity, or the arts [15].

Spirituality is a continuous process that changes over a person's lifetime, and is affected by illness and dying. Terminally ill patients generally acknowledge a greater spiritual perspective or orientation than either nonterminally ill or healthy patients [16].

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SPIRITUAL ISSUES — Many clinicians find it difficult to initiate a discussion with patients about spirituality. Clinicians are often reluctant to talk about spiritual issues with their patients because they believe it is not their role to do so, or that patients might consider such discussion intrusive or evangelical. Furthermore, physicians may feel overwhelmed and unsure of how to respond if a patient turns to them in spiritual distress [17-19]. Yet, most studies indicate that patients want their health care professionals to ask about spiritual concerns, and that they benefit from discussions of these issues with their physicians [20-23].

The interdisciplinary nature of spiritual care — Spiritual care requires an interdisciplinary focus, with participation of all members of the healthcare team. This includes the clinician, nurse, chaplains, social worker, counselors, dietitians, housekeeping staff, and other allied health care workers. In addition, members of the community (clergy, parish nurses, others) may also interact with all or some members of the healthcare team, with the patient, and/or with the patient's family.

In the collaborative interdisciplinary team model of patient care, each member of the team has an area of expertise. Although all members may discuss overlapping issues such as diet, physical symptoms, spiritual issues, and social concerns, the trained professionals in each of these areas will usually pursue certain issues in greater depth (show figure 1). For example, a chaplain may discover that a patient is bothered by pain or nausea, and then relay these concerns to the doctor or nurse so that they can make appropriate recommendations for treatment. Any member of the team may discuss spiritual issues with the patient. However, it is usually the chaplain or other spiritual care professional who can address these issues in depth, and make treatment and/or follow-up recommendations.

**Spiritual care providers — Spiritual care providers may be chaplains who work in healthcare settings such as hospitals, hospices, and long term care facilities, or members of the community (eg, clergy, parish nurses, spiritual directors). All are trained to address the spiritual and existential issues faced by patients in the context of serious illness and death. However, there are some differences in the focus and capabilities of different types of spiritual care providers: Chaplains, who may be ordained clergy or lay persons, are certified by one of five organizations after they complete a two-year training program called Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) [24]. Chaplains are qualified to work with patients of any religious denomination, as well as with those who are not religious or who don't identify themselves as spiritual. Non-chaplain clergy typically provide more religiously oriented care, usually with a patient of the same religious denomination. Pastoral counselors are mental health counselors with an advanced-degree (masters, PhD) who have additional training in spiritual, existential and religious issues. Spiritual directors work with patients to deepen their relationship with the divine power/higher being/transcendent, however the individual patient understands that concept.

Assessment — Routine inquiry about spirituality should be incorporated into the initial or interim history [18,25,26]. A spiritual history tool with the acronym FICA (which stands for Faith/beliefs, Importance/Influence, Community, Address in care) can be a helpful starting point to open a conversation with patients about the importance of their beliefs, faith community, and their intersection with health care (show figure 2) [29]. Other clinically useful assessment tools include HOPE [36] and SPIRIT [38]. Another potentially useful tool is the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual (FACIT-Sp) instrument [30], although this tool is used mainly for research studies.

Spiritual issues should be periodically readdressed over the course of the illness because of their dynamic nature [27]. Clinicians should be particularly sensitive to comments that might indicate spiritual need or distress. Often, patients express spiritual need with discernible cues such as fear, despair, desire for a hastened death, hopelessness, feeling useless or isolated, loss of meaning or dignity, or death anxiety [13,28]. These cues should be followed up with further discussion, support and appropriate referral.

Management of spiritual issues — A practical guide for discussing and managing spiritual and religious issues that arise during end of life care is available from a working group on religious and spiritual issues at the end of life [19]. It details active listening and supportive dialogue to help patients work through existential issues and find peace. Important goals for the clinician are to listen carefully and empathetically, clarify the patient's concerns, beliefs and spiritual needs, be sensitive to comments that may indicate spiritual distress, and to mobilize supportive resources such as spiritual care providers, when necessary (see above).

**Importance of symptom control — Physical symptoms are common at the end of life, and if severe or uncontrolled, may impact psychological well-being and quality of life. Many terminally ill patients report that physical discomfort is one of their greatest concerns as they face the prospect of death. Effective management of physical symptoms (particularly pain) can help allay patient's fears, and is essential in addition to addressing issues related to spiritual distress.

Pain is typically multifactorial, with physical, emotional, social, and spiritual components. Each dimension must be addressed. A patient may appear to suffer from unrelenting physical pain and, even though appropriate medication is given for the physical pain, the patient continues to be in distress. Emotional, social or spiritual pain or distress may be contributing to the expression of pain. It is therefore important to address all dimensions of pain and other symptoms, including the spiritual dimension, in order to provide the patient with optimal symptom management.

The clinician-patient relationship — An important component of spiritual care has to do with the relational aspect of the healthcare professional-patient partnership [19,32]. All clinicians should strive to deliver relationship-focused care that is delivered in a compassionate, caring manner. Compassion means "to suffer with", and to render compassionate care requires a commitment on the part of the healthcare professional to be a partner with the patient in the midst of their suffering. This means: Being fully present and attentive to the patient during the time that the healthcare professional has with that patient. Creating an atmosphere of trust where patients and their family members can share their deepest concerns. Instead of focusing on agenda-driven conversations about treatments and outcomes, being more open to the patient and listening to his or her concerns, beliefs, hopes, fears, and dreams. The focus of care should be on the whole person, including the physical, emotional, social and spiritual aspects of the individual. Treatment plans should be formulated that incorporate what is important to the patient.

An important component of this exchange is listening fully to the patient's story: who they are, what they value, how they make decisions, who is important in their lives, what gives their lives meaning, and how they understand illness and dying. Giving voice to patients who cannot speak for themselves. This comes from either knowing the patient from previous clinical encounters, or learning enough about him or her from family, friends, and/or their spiritual or religious communities to be able to defend what is important to them, even if it conflicts with what may be the recommended evidence-based course of action. Focusing on the inherent dignity of all people regardless of their physical condition. Providing the patient and his or her family with opportunities for closure, forgiveness, and the best quality of life that can be achieved.

PRAYING WITH PATIENTS — Some patients may request that the healthcare professional pray with him or her. The extent to which this is possible depends on the clinical setting and circumstance and the individual beliefs of the patient and healthcare professional. Clinicians or other healthcare professionals should never feel obliged to pray with patients; some clinicians and healthcare professionals may feel comfortable with the requests, while others may not. A clinician or healthcare professional should never coerce a patient into praying or into accepting the prayers of the clinician. That could potentially violate the trust a patient places in the clinician and be outside the boundaries of legitimate medical practice [33,34].

Christianity — Especially with dying patients, a request for the helath care professional to pray with him or her is usually very profound for the patient. A clinician or healthcare professional can sit by in silence as the patient prays in the patient's own language or tradition. Alternatively, the clinician or healthcare professional can suggest that a chaplain be invited to lead the prayer.

Islam — Doctors may pray for patients, and they are encouraged to. Patients may also pray either for themselves or for other fellow patients or family mebers as it is believed that the prayers of suffering patients are especially welcomed by God because of their suffering. Praying may either be performed individually or in a group.

Hinduism — The Hindu religion does not have specific guides on issues of physicians praying together with patients.

PRACTICES OF MAJOR WORLD RELIGIONS — As noted above, most patients express their spirituality in the form of religious beliefs and practices. What follows is a brief description of the major world religions, and individual issues within each faith that impact on healthcare decision making, and how patients respond to serious illness and dying [6,35].

Buddhism — Buddhism is a non-theistic world religion that exists in several basic forms and many ethnic variations. The Buddha is not worshipped as a God; instead, his life and teachings are seen as a model to follow.

The Four Noble Truths, the primary teachings of the Buddha, are as follows: Life is ultimately unsatisfactory because of birth, sickness, old age, and death. The desire to cling to and hold on to the pleasant, and push away the unpleasant is a cause for suffering. Nirvana is the end of desire, craving, clinging, and suffering. The Noble Eightfold Path is the way leading to the end of suffering. The path consists of right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. This path combines personal discipline, mental purification, and wisdom to achieve ultimate happiness and a skillful way of living.

**Meaning of suffering — Buddhists believe that life is filled with pain and suffering, but that suffering can be overcome. Suffering originates from the mistaken belief that one can somehow hold on to all the good, and push away all the bad. Buddhists use precept practice (ie, the practice of avoiding taking of a life, the avoidance of taking what is not given, the avoidance of sexual misconduct, lying, consumption of intoxicants in a way similar to the ten commandments) and meditation practice to achieve freedom from suffering, and ultimately nirvana (the end of suffering). When the Buddhist awakens to the ultimate reality of nirvana, desire and craving fall away, and suffering is ended. Nirvana, the end goal of life, is achieved during life but some will not achieve it while alive but will achieve pari-nirvana after death.

**Spiritual practices — Meditation, contemplation, precept practice, Yoga, and chanting provide guidance, comfort, and meaning to Buddhists.

**Dietary restrictions — Different branches of Buddhism have different dietary regulations.

**Death — In Buddhism, there is a belief in rebirth, heaven, hell, and pari-nirvana (nirvana after death).

The dying person's state of mind is very important in the Buddhist religion. To help patients achieve peace of mind, family, friends and monks read religious texts and repeat mantras to the dying person. Some Buddhists believe that the dead person's consciousness remains near to or within the body for several days, so monks chant from sacred texts to assist the dead person's passing into the next life.

**Ethical issues — Buddhists believe that it is good to continue living, but when the mind is no longer alert or the person is in excessive pain, a natural death is preferable. Allowing a person to die a natural and peaceful death is important.

Christianity — Christianity, which originally began as a Jewish sect, is a monotheistic religion that is centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christians believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which affirms that there are actually three persons in one God – Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit. Most Christians believe that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human. A basic tenet of Christianity is that Jesus, by his life, death, and resurrection (return to the divine), has broken the bonds of death and won eternal life for all. Following Christ's example, Christians strive to develop unconditional love for God and other people.

Guidance and inspiration come from the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments), and from the traditions of the faith community. The words of the Gospels provide a framework for living a good Christian life.

There are several traditions of Christianity, such as Roman Catholic, Anglican, various Protestant denominations, and Evangelical groups.

**Suffering — Jesus Christ provides a different model of suffering, in that His death and suffering is the means of redeeming humankind. This does not mean that suffering is to be endured as if it were a test of one's faith but rather it is accepted because by Jesus' suffering the effects of sin and evil have been removed. By sharing in His suffering, the Christian deepens his or her union with God on a mystical level, as St. Paul wrote: "We are always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested on our body" (2Cor 4:10). This does not deny that people have pain but it does help them cope with it.

Some Christians see suffering as a punishment for sin, but many others do not see a causal relationship.There are many variations in how Christians come to understand this for themselves. Whether the illness is an opportunity for purification and redemption or whether it is just a part of nature we have to cope with is much debated. In the midst of the debate is the life of Christ, who shows us that pain and suffering, and even death, can be transcended. In that message, there is hope for humanity.

**Spiritual practices — Prayer, sacraments, rituals, meditation, and formal religious services (such as masses) offer comfort and meaning, as well as an opportunity to express community worship.

**Dietary restrictions — In Christianity, diet varies with tradition. Some people choose to fast on particular religious holy days. Catholic Christians fast and abstain from eating meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Some but not all Catholics also abstain from meat on all the Fridays of the year. Hospitalized or ill patients are excused.

**Death — In Christianity, death is seen as a natural part of life. Because Christians believe that an important goal of living a good Christian life is to achieve "eternal life" with God, some Christians welcome death as the opportunity to realize this full union with God.

The Christian belief in the afterlife is based on the resurrection of Christ - that the Christian will also be raised and united with God in eternity.

Family, friends, priests, or ministers pray or sing at the bedside of the dying person. For Catholic Christians, the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick or the prayer ritual called Viaticum brings peace and comfort.

After death, practices vary among the different Christian traditions, such as wake services, funeral masses, and graveside blessings. In Catholicism, people offer masses in remembrance of loved ones for many years after the person has died, particularly on the anniversary of their death.

**Ethical issues — The influence of religious tenets on end of life care and organ donation decisions vary. Most Christians place emphasis on respect for and value of life but also view quality of life and dignity of the human person as central to decision making.

Islam — Islam is a monotheistic religion that is based on the teachings of the Prophet Muhammed. Muslims believe in one God (Allah) who is all-powerful, compassionate, and immortal, and that Muhammed is his last messenger. As in Christianity, after death, the soul is judged by Allah and remains in either heaven or hell. Guidance is provided by the Koran, prayer, rituals and fasting.

**Meaning of suffering — Suffering is caused by alienation from the will of Allah and relieved by total surrender to His will, as embodied in the Koran.

**Spiritual practices — Muslims believe in the Five Pillars of Islam (the testimony of faith, ritual prayer several times daily, obligatory almsgiving, fasting and pilgrimage to Mecca, designated as the holy city of Islam by Muhammed). The Ten Commandments, and the Golden Rule as principles to live by. The daily required periods of prayer are important for the spiritual well-being of Muslims.

When a patient is ill, he is still required to perform the five daily prayers by prostration and bowing as long as his condition allows. When he becomes too ill for physical exertion, prayer can be performed in the best position that is allowed by his condition.

Mosques are places of worship, learning and meditation. Moslems are encouraged rather than mandated to attend mosque services not only to attain a higher level of spirituality but to also share a sense of community with their fellow Moslems.

**Dietary restrictions — Most Muslims follow rigid dietary guidelines (no pork, no alcohol) and are required to wash specific parts of the body before each of the required daily periods of prayer.

**Death — Creation, death, and resurrection are linked. Life is viewed as a time of preparation for the soul to pass into life after death. To struggle against death is viewed as resisting the will of Allah.

Muslims who are dying usually want to lie facing toward Mecca. When a Muslim is dying, family members repeat prayers, read Islamic scripture, and encourage the patient to repeat the statement of faith. Islam encourages attending funeral services as a meritorious act, whether or not those who participate in the services personally knew the deceased. Many services may be held at the same time in different places for the same person. These services are considered spiritually beneficial for the dead, as well as for the people who participate in them.

The dead are buried without unnecessary delay, and burial rites are simple and austere. The dead are buried so that their heads are directed toward the city of Mecca. When entering the cemetery one recites a special greeting to the deceased: "Peace be upon all of you, all people of graves!".

**Ethical issues — Human life is of the highest value in Islam. It is permissible to use life support to save and extend life. The purpose of aggressive medical intervention is to maintain life but not to cross the line and clearly interfere with the will of God and the natural course of life and death. Physician-assisted suicide is prohibited. While it is not permissible to disconnect life support, it is also not permissible to cause harm to the patient with equipment or drugs when the futility of such treatment is established by the medical team.

Hinduism — Hinduism is a very complex faith. It encompasses a wide variety of beliefs, practices, and mythological stories of gods and goddesses, all of which have deep meaning and significance for Hindus. Hinduism is the majority religion in India, Nepal, and in the island of Bali (Indonesia). There is a substantial minority population of Hindus in Malaysia, Singapore, Fiji, Mauritius, Trinidad, Guyana, and Surinam.

A basic tenet of Hinduism is that the true core of every individual being is a spiritual entity called the soul. This soul is not created by a God but is considered to be co-eternal with Him. The soul, because of its primal ignorance about things spiritual, is drawn toward the material world. This ignorant materialistic orientation of the soul creates desires, which in turn make the soul commit selfish deeds.

The effects of these deeds (karma) accrue to the soul, and upon the death of the body, cause it to be reborn into another body in order to experience the consequences of its past deeds. Since the soul is gifted with free will by God, it ignorantly commits more selfish acts, thereby ensuring its rebirth again and again. To break from this seemingly endless cycle of births and deaths, the soul has to become spiritually oriented. This is called enlightenment (viveka). When this is achieved, the soul performs only selfless deeds which do not accrue any new karma to the soul. Once the previously accrued karma is exhausted, the soul is forever freed from the cycle of rebirths and deaths. According to a major school of Hindu thought, the freed soul then merges with God, just like a drop of water merges into the ocean.

**Meaning of suffering — Hindus believe that suffering is caused by karma, and is the direct result of an individual's bad deeds that were carried out either in this life or in a past life. Suffering can be either physical or mental.

**Spiritual practices — Hindus have four types of spiritual practices. These are: Devotion to God or gods (bhakti) Performing selfless good deeds (karma) Studying holy texts (jnana) Meditating on God or gods (dhyana)

A combination of these four is also acceptable.

**Dietary restrictions — Most Hindus are vegetarian, avoiding all meat and fish. They believe that the taking of another life for one's own nourishment is wrong, and that making another living being suffer is creating bad karma for oneself. Furthermore, the bad "vibes" emanating from another living being that is about to die will have an effect upon one's own spiritual well-being. Some Hindus will not even eat onions or garlic, not only because of their odor (which is viewed as unpleasant), but also because these foods are said to be unwholesome to one's spiritual progress.

**Death — Death signifies only death of the body, and separation of the eternal soul from the body. Depending upon the spiritual state of the deceased individual, the soul will either reenter another body or attain salvation. The mind accompanies the soul from one lifetime to the next. Because of the mind's ignorance about the soul, it is unable to know its past lives. However, when the soul is about to attain salvation, it gets permanently separated from the mind as well. To summarize: In life — soul plus mind plus body At death — soul plus mind are separated from the body In salvation — soul separated forever from mind and body

At the death of a Hindu, it is important to do the following: Remove the dead or dying individual from the bed; place him/her on the ground Pour holy water (previously brought from the temple and kept in a bottle on the bedside table) into the mouth of the dying individual Recite the mantra of the favorite god of the dying individual Light a lamp at the head of the corpse when the person dies

Orthodox Hindus consider death and touching of the corpse as highly polluting. Death rites are performed by the priest. Funeral rites last for 3, 10, or 13 days, or a full year depending on the orthodoxy of the family.

**Ethical issues — Mercy killing, assisted suicide, and suicide are disapproved of, but allowing "nature to take its course" is acceptable. Having a living will and organ donation are both individual choices.

Judaism — One of the oldest world religions, dating back to Abraham in 1700 BCE, Judaism believes that every person is created in the image of God and carries that divine worth throughout life. All people are part of the Covenant God made with Noah; Jews are additionally part of the Covenant God made with the People Israel. God's commandments, announced first in the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) and then interpreted and applied by rabbis throughout the generations, help Jews to live a holy life dedicated to God and to God's mission for them. They seek to repair the world (tikkun olam) in all the ways it is broken – illness, poverty, ignorance, prejudice, etc.

**Meaning of suffering — Suffering has no particular spiritual connotation. It is to be avoided as much as possible. Part of the way Jews attempt to repair the world, in fact, is by alleviating pain and suffering, their own and that of all other humans.

**Spiritual practices — Whether selected from the traditional prayer book (the Siddur) or created on one's own, prayer is a staple of Jewish spiritual life. Another is study of Jewish sacred texts – the Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, or other Jewish literature. People visiting the ill may help them create a Jewish ethical will, which can be in writing or on audiotape or videotape, in which the person tells the family story, describes what is important to him or her (hence the name "ethical will"), articulates hopes for the future of the family and the world, and expresses love. Visitors can help patients create one by asking questions that call up memories of the patient's family, values, and life.

Fasting is practiced during the solemn holy day of Yom Kippur, but is excused for severely ill patients, if intake of food is essential to life and well being (the concept of pikuach nefesh, or saving of the specific life, which supersedes all other religious mandates).

**Dietary restrictions — Traditional Jews observe the dietary restrictions known as Kashrut; they "keep Kosher." That means that they eat only those fish, fowl, and animals allowed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 – specifically, fish with scales and fins (no shell fish), domestic fowl (chicken, turkey, etc. – no birds of prey), and animals whose hooves are parted and who chew their cud. Moreover, fowl and animals must be slaughtered in a specific way, the blood must be drained from the meat, and no dairy products may be served with a meat meal. Typically in a hospital setting this means that Jews who keep kosher must be given meals certified as kosher by a rabbinic authority. Not all Jews keep kosher. Some are vegetarian.

**Death — "There is a time to be born and a time to die" (Ecclesiastes 3:2). Although Judaism demands that everything be done medically to save life and health, it recognizes that death is a natural part of life. Jews focus on improving things in this life, but Judaism does include beliefs about life after death, in which good will be rewarded and evil punished.

After death, the Hevrah Kaddisha ("the holy society") prepares the body for burial. Men deal with male bodies, and women with female bodies; modesty is preserved even in death. The body is washed and clothed in linen shrouds (the same clothing for everyone, indicating equality in death). Someone stays with the body from the moment of death until burial, reciting Psalms. The body is ideally buried the same day before sundown, or as soon thereafter as is possible.

Traditional Judaism does not permit embalming or cremation. Autopsy is also prohibited unless required by law, or in situations where there is clear and direct evidence that the resulting information would provide benefit to the deceased. In other words, for traditional Jews, an autopsy to "benefit future patients" or medical science in general would not be acceptable.

The funeral service consists of eulogies and prayers. After the funeral a seven-day period of mourning (Shivah, seven) ensues, during which time people come to the mourners' home both morning and evening to pray and share with the mourners memories of the deceased. Traditional Jews do not leave the house during that time, and mirrors in the home are covered.

After burial, mourners are required to recite the kaddish prayer twice a day for 11 months, and this requires a minyan, or congregation of at least 10 adult Jews. During these 11 months, traditional Jews will not attend joyous or entertaining events where music is being played (eg, concerts, movies, wedding receptions).

**Ethical issues — Rabbis differ on issues of medical ethics at the end of life. Most prohibit assisted suicide but allow the withholding or withdrawal of life support systems. For some, that includes the removal of artificial nutrition and hydration. Donation of a person's organs for transplant is encouraged.

SUMMARY — Spiritual and religious beliefs, values, and practices play a significant role in the lives of patients who are seriously ill and dying.

Some important considerations for physicians and other healthcare professionals regarding spirituality include the following: A spiritual history should be recorded as part of a new patient evaluation, and spiritual issues readdressed periodically through the course of the illness. A spiritual history tool such as FICA (show figure 1) can be a helpful starting point to open a conversation with patients about spiritual issues. For patients facing the end of life, spiritual care is interdisciplinary collaborative care, and requires the participation of all members of the healthcare team. Clinicians should clarify the patient's concerns, beliefs, fears, and spiritual needs, and be sensitive to comments that may indicate spiritual distress. Active listening and supportive dialogue may help patients work through existential issues and find peace. Patients who are in spiritual distress should be referred to certified and trained spiritual care professionals such as chaplains, spiritual directors, pastoral counselors and clergy. All clinicians should strive to deliver relationship-focused care that is delivered in a compassionate, caring manner. This includes being fully present and attentive to the needs of the patient and all aspects of the patient's suffering—the physical, emotional, social and spiritual, and creating an atmosphere of trust where patients can share their deepest concerns. Clinicians should be knowledgeable about and sensitive to the individual death practices and customs that characterize the major world faiths. Attending funeral services for patients who have died may mean a great deal to the family, but may also bring closure to the healthcare professional.


Use of UpToDate is subject to the Subscription and License Agreement. REFERENCES 1.*Daaleman, T, et al. Placing religion and spirituality in end-of-life care. JAMA 2000; 284:2514.
2.*Moadel, A, Morgan, C, Fatone, A, et al. Seeking meaning and hope: self-reported spiritual and existential needs among an ethnically diverse cancer patient population. Psychooncology 1999; 8:378.
3.*Steinhauser, KE, Christakis, NA, Clipp, EC, et al. Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers. JAMA 2000; 284:2476.
4.*McClain, CS, Rosenfeld, B, Breitbart, W. Effect of spiritual well-being on end-of-life despair in terminally ill cancer patients. Lancet 2003; 361:1603.
5.*Holland, JC, Passik, S, Kash, KM, et al. The role of religious and spiritual beliefs in coping with malignant melanoma. Psychooncology 1999; 8:14.
6.*Puchalski, CM, Dorff, RE, Hendi, IY. Spirituality, religion, and healing in palliative care. Clin Geriatr Med 2004; 20:689.
7.*Baider, L, Russak, SM, Perry, S, et al. The role of religious and spiritual beliefs in coping with malignant melanoma: an Israeli sample. Psychooncology 1999; 8:27.
8.*McIllmurray, MB, Francis, B, Harman, JC, et al. Psychosocial needs in cancer patients related to religious belief. Palliat Med 2003; 17:49.
9.*Born, W, Greiner, KA, Sylvia, E, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about end-of-life care among inner-city African Americans and Latinos. J Palliat Med 2004; 7:247.
10.*McClain-Jacobson, C, Rosenfeld, B, Kosinski, A, et al. Belief in an afterlife, spiritual well-being and end-of-life despair in patients with advanced cancer. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2004; 26:484.
11.*Hills, J, Paice, JA, Cameron, JR, Shott, S. Spirituality and distress in palliative care consultation. J Palliat Med 2005; 8:782.
12.*Block, SD. Perspectives on care at the close of life. Psychological considerations, growth, and transcendence at the end of life: the art of the possible. JAMA 2001; 285:2898.
13.*Brown, AE, Whitney, SN, Duffy, JD. The physician's role in the assessment and treatment of spiritual distress at the end of life. Palliat Support Care 2006; 4:81.
14.*Sinclair, S, Pereira, J, Raffin, S. A thematic review of the spirituality literature within palliative care. J Palliat Med 2006; 9:464.
15.*Hatch, RL, Burg, MA, Naberhaus, DS, Hellmich, LK. The Spiritual Involvement and Beliefs Scale. Development and testing of a new instrument. J Fam Pract 1998; 46:476.
16.*Reed, PG. Spirituality and well-being in terminally ill hospitalized adults. Res Nurs Health 1987; 10:335.
17.*Thiel, MM, et al. Physicians' collaboration with.. J Clin Ethics 1997; 8:94.
18.*Post, SG, Puchalski, CM, Larson, DB. Physicians and patient spirituality: professional boundaries, competency, and ethics. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132:578.
19.*Lo, B, Kates, LW, Arnold, RM, et al. Discussing religious and spiritual issues at the end of life: a practical guide for physicians. JAMA 2002; 287:749.
20.*Ehman, JW, et al. Do patients want?. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159:1803.
21.*Daaleman, TP, Nease, DE Jr. Patient attitudes regarding physician inquiry into spiritual and religious issues. J Fam Pract 1994; 39:564.
22.*McCord, G, Gilchrist, VJ, Grossman, SD, et al. Discussing spirituality with patients: a rational and ethical approach. Ann Fam Med 2004; 2:356.
23.*Kristeller, JL, Rhodes, M, Cripe, LD, Sheets, V. Oncologist Assisted Spiritual Intervention Study (OASIS): patient acceptability and initial evidence of effects. Int J Psychiatry Med 2005; 35:329.
24.*A White Paper. Professional chaplaincy: its role and importance in healthcare. J Pastoral Care 2001; 55:81.
25.*Puchalski, CM, Larson, DB. Developing curricula in spirituality and medicine. Acad Med 1998; 73:970.
26. *Institute of Medicine. Approaching death: Improving care at the End-Of Life. Washington DC, National Press, 1997.
27. *National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care: Clinical Practice Guidelines for quality palliative care, executive summary. J Palliat Med 2004; 7:611.
28.*Chibnall, JT, Videen, SD, Duckro, PN, Miller, DK. Psychosocial-spiritual correlates of death distress in patients with life-threatening medical conditions. Palliat Med 2002; 16:331.
29.*Puchalski, CM. Spirituality and end-of-life care: a time for listening and caring. J Palliat Med 2002; 5:289.
30.*Peterman, AH, Fitchett, G, Brady, MJ, et al. Measuring spiritual well-being in people with cancer: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy--Spiritual Well-being Scale (FACIT-Sp). Ann Behav Med 2002; 24:49.
31.*Steinhauser, KE, Voils, CI, Clipp, EC, et al. "Are you at peace?" : one item to probe spiritual concerns at the end of life. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:101.
32. *Puchalski, CM (Ed). A Time for Listening and Caring: Spirituality and The Care of the Chronically Ill and Dying. Oxford University Press, New York, 2006.
33.*Astrow, AB, Puchalski, CM, Sulmasy, DP. Religion, spirituality, and health care: social, ethical, and practical considerations. Am J Med 2001; 110:283.
34.*Mann, JR, McKay, S, Daniels, D, et al. Physician offered prayer and patient satisfaction. Int J Psychiatry Med 2005; 35:161.
35. *Puchalski, CM, O'Donnell, E. Religious and spiritual beliefs in end of life care: how major religions view death and dying. Techniques in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management 2005; 9:114.
36. *Anandarajah, G, Hight, E. Spirituality and medical practice: using the HOPE questions as a practical tool for spiritual assessment. Am Fam Physician 2001; 63:81.
37. *Maugans, TA. The SPIRITual history. Arch Fam Med 1996; 5:11.


A Dose Of God May Help Medicine
ScienceDaily (Nov. 15, 2007) — For some families, the cancer diagnosis of a child strengthens existing religious ties or prompts new ones. Now, a new study by researchers at Brandeis University and the University at Buffalo - SUNY in Pediatric Hematology and Oncology reports that while most pediatric oncologists say they are spiritual, and many are open to connecting with the families of very sick children through religion or spirituality, they typically lack the formal healthcare training that could help them build such bridges.

"Increasingly, religion and spirituality are being recognized as important in the care of critically ill patients and we know that many parents draw on such resources to cope with their child's illness," said coauthor Wendy Cadge, a Brandeis sociologist. "This study suggests that we should consider training to help physicians relate spiritually to families confronting life-threatening illness such as cancer."

The study surveyed 74 pediatric hematologists and oncologists at 13 elite hospitals from the U.S. News & World Report ranking of "honor roll hospitals." The findings include:

93.3 percent of the physicians surveyed were raised in a religious tradition; 31 percent Protestant; 25.7 percent Catholic; 25.7 Jewish, and 10.8 percent other.
The majority reported that religion was very important (25.7 percent) or somewhat important (48.6 percent) in their family when they were growing up.
24.3 percent of the physicians said they were Jewish; 20.3 percent said they had no current religious affiliation; 17 percent were Catholic; 17 percent were Protestant; almost 15 percent identified with another religion.
47.3 percent described themselves as very or moderately spiritual; 37.8 percent described themselves as slightly spiritual; 13.5 percent described themselves as not at all spiritual.
More than half of the respondents said their spiritual or religious beliefs influence to some extent their interactions with families, patients, and colleagues, while almost 40 percent believed they did not.

"Research shows that many patients do not feel the medical system adequately meets their spiritual needs," said Cadge. "By shedding light on how religion and spirituality connect to the practice of medicine, this study is a first step toward addressing such needs of patients and their families during a profoundly threatening chapter of life."

Adapted from materials provided by Brandeis University

Psychiatrists Are The Least Religious Of All Physicians
ScienceDaily (Sep. 4, 2007) — A nationwide survey of the religious beliefs and practices of American physicians has found that the least religious of all medical specialties is psychiatry. Among psychiatrists who have a religion, more than twice as many are Jewish and far fewer are Protestant or Catholic, the two most common religions among physicians overall.


The study, published in the September 2007 issue of Psychiatric Services, also found that religious physicians, especially Protestants, are less likely to refer patients to psychiatrists, and more likely to send them to members of the clergy or to a religious counselor.

"Something about psychiatry, perhaps its historical ties to psychoanalysis and the anti-religious views of the early analysts such as Sigmund Freud, seems to dissuade religious medical students from choosing to specialize in this field," said study author Farr Curlin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. "It also seems to discourage religious physicians from referring their patients to psychiatrists."

"Previous surveys have documented the unusual religious profile of psychiatry," he said, "but this is the first study to suggest that that profile leads many physicians to look away from psychiatrists for help in responding to patients' psychological and spiritual suffering."

"Because psychiatrists take care of patients struggling with emotional, personal and relational problems," Curlin said, "the gap between the religiousness of the average psychiatrist and her average patient may make it difficult for them to connect on a human level."

In 2003, to learn about the contribution of religious factors on physicians' clinical practices, Curlin and colleagues surveyed 1,820 practicing physicians from all specialties, including an augmented number of psychiatrists; 1,144 (63%) physicians responded, including 100 psychiatrists.

The survey contained questions about medical specialties, religion, and measures of what the researchers called intrinsic religiosity--the extent to which individuals embrace their religion as the "master motive that guides and gives meaning to their life."

Although 61 percent of all American physicians were either Protestant (39%) or Catholic (22%), only 37 percent of psychiatrists were Protestant (27%) or Catholic (10%). Twenty-nine percent were Jewish, compared to 13 percent of all physicians. Seventeen percent of psychiatrists listed their religion as "none," compared to only 10 percent of all doctors.

Curlin's survey also included this brief vignette, designed to present "ambiguous symptoms of psychological distress" as way measure the willingness of physicians to refer patients to psychiatrists.

"A patient presents to you with continued deep grieving two months after the death of his wife. If you were to refer the patient, to which of the following would you prefer to refer first" (a psychiatrist or psychologist, a clergy member or religious counselor, a health care chaplain, or other)."

Overall, 56 percent of physicians indicated they would refer such a patient to a psychiatrist or psychologist, 25 percent to a clergy member or other religious counselor, 7 percent to a health care chaplain and 12 percent to someone else.

Although Protestant physicians were only half as likely to send the patient to a psychiatrist, Jewish physicians were more likely to do so. Least likely were highly religious Protestants who attended church at least twice a month and looked to God for guidance "a great deal or quite a lot."

"Patients probably seek out, to some extent, physicians who share their views on life's big questions," Curlin said. That may be especially true in psychiatry, where communication is so essential. The mismatch in religious beliefs between psychiatrists and patients may make it difficult for patients suffering from emotional or personal problems to find physicians who share their fundamental belief systems.

The Greenwall Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program funded this study. Additional authors include John Lantos, Marshall Chin, Ryan Lawrence and Shaun Odell of the University of Chicago, and Keith Meador and Harold Koenig of Duke University.

Adapted from materials provided by University of Chicago Medical Center.

Most Physicians Believe That Religion Influences Patients' Health
ScienceDaily (Apr. 10, 2007) — More than half of physicians believe that religion and spirituality have a significant influence on patients' health, according to a report in the April 9 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. Physicians who are most religious are more likely to interpret the influence of religion and spirituality in positive ways.


The relationship between religion and health generates controversy in the medical world, according to background information in the article. "Consensus seems to begin and end with the idea that many (if not most) patients draw on prayer and other religious resources to navigate and overcome the spiritual challenges that arise in their experiences of illness," the authors note. "Controversy remains regarding whether, to what extent and in what ways religion and spirituality helps or harms patients' health."

Farr A. Curlin, M.D., and colleagues at the University of Chicago mailed a survey in 2003 to a random sample of 2,000 practicing U.S. physicians 65 years or younger from all specialties. The survey included questions to determine physicians' religious characteristics, general observations and interpretations of religion and spirituality and potential positive and negative influences of religion and spirituality.

The response rate was 63 percent (1,144 of 1,820) and the average age for respondents was 49. According to the study, two-thirds of U.S. physicians believe that experiencing illness often or always increases patients' awareness of religion and spirituality issues. A majority of physicians (56 percent) think that religion and spirituality has much or very much influence on health and 54 percent believe that at times a supernatural being intervenes. The majority of physicians (85 percent) believe that the influence of religion and spirituality is generally positive, but few (6 percent) feel that religion and spirituality changes medical outcomes.

The study also found that 76 percent of physicians believe that religion and spirituality helps patients cope, 74 percent believe that it gives patients a positive state of mind and 55 percent report that it provides emotional and practical support through religious community. Few physicians (7 percent) believe that religion and spirituality often causes negative emotions such as guilt and anxiety, 2 percent think it leads patients to decline medical therapy and 4 percent report that patients use it to avoid taking responsibility for their health, but about one-third believe it has these harmful influences sometimes.

Physicians' observations and interpretations are strongly influenced by their religious beliefs, according to the authors. "Physicians with higher intrinsic religiosity are much more likely to (1) report that their patients bring up religion and spirituality issues, (2) believe that religion and spirituality strongly influences health and (3) interpret the influence of religion and spirituality in positive rather than negative ways."

These findings lend support to recommendations that physicians recognize how their own beliefs influence how they provide care, the authors note. "Physicians' notions about the relationship between religion and spirituality and patients' health are strongly associated with physicians' own religious characteristics," they conclude. "Future studies should examine the ways physicians' religious (and secular) commitments shape their clinical engagements in these and other domains."

Editor's Note: This study was funded by a grant from the Greenwall Foundation and by the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program. Dr. Curlin is also supported by a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health. Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and support, etc.

Adapted from materials provided by JAMA and Archives Journals.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070409164931.htm



:w:
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top