|
|
Therapist Directory: Find a Psychologist, Find a Therapist, Find a Marriage Counselor
PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS
Selected topics in psychology
and mental health.
|
|
|
|
|
THE THERAPIST PSYCHOLOGIST BOOK STORE
 | |
 View Larger |
Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine By Richard P. Sloan ( St. Martin's Griffin )
Release Date: 2008-03-18
Average Customer Rating:
List Price: $15.95
Price: $10.85
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|  Add to Cart |
|
|
Product Description
Pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. Surgeons who pray in the OR. Pro-life clinics and end-of-life interventions, intelligent-design activists and stem-cell-research opponents. Is this the state of modern medicine in America?
In Blind Faith, Dr. Richard P. Sloan examines the fragile balance and dangerous alliance between religion and medicine—two practices that have grown disconcertingly close during the twenty-first century. While Sloan does not dispute the fact that religion can bring a sense of comfort in times of difficulty, he nevertheless believes, and in fact proves, that there is no compelling evidence that faith provides an actual cure for any ailment. By exposing the flawed research, Sloan gives readers the tools to understand when good medical science is subverted and, at the same time, provides a thought-provoking examination into the origins and varieties of faith, and human nature itself.
|
|
 A Thorough Critique...
Watching the network news, one would be led to believe that it has been scientifically proven that intercessory prayer heals the sick and that being a Christian is better for your health than being a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist. Is this really the case, or have we been misled by an uncritical media and a handful of agenda-driven pundits masquerading as scientists? "Blind Faith" attempts to answer this question and more.
Richard P. Sloan's work discussing the recent spate of studies that purport to link religious practices with quantifiable medical benefits is devastatingly effective in cutting the legs out from under this so-called research. Sloan first explains that there are far fewer studies regarding religious effects on health than the public has been led to believe, because unscrupulous researchers will often include any study that asks even obliquely religious questions of its participants in their lists of "religion and health outcomes" experiments, then he goes on to systematically dismantle the few meaningful studies that remain. He spends a considerable amount of time, for example, explaining the flaws in the much-touted "definitive studies" MANTRA and MANTRA II. (It is worth noting that MANTRA II was almost uniformly negative in its conclusions, but that its authors were making references in the media to the tentatively positive results in its parent study MANTRA right up until a few days before the MANTRA II results were published. Why?)
At each step of this journey, Sloan explains to the readers how statistical artifacts, poor experimental procedures, and various other caveats hamper the study of religion and health, rendering questionable essentially all of the conclusions that studies like MANTRA II have purportedly reached. Prominent among the woes of these studies is something called the "sharpshooter's fallacy", which Sloan explains as emptying your gun into a wall and then drawing a bull's eye around your bullets. As applied to science, that means testing an enormous amount of variables simultaneously and then selecting any outcomes that seem to support your hypothesis as confirmation. One of the health studies Sloan critiques dealt with over a 160 variables -simultaneously-, and its authors crowed loudly about apparently significant results regarding only a handful of these variables. Sloan notes that, from a statistical standpoint, one is almost certain to find some statistically significant result by random chance alone when testing for that many variables at once. In another instance, Sloan wryly notes that two different studies drawing from the same set of data were reported to show positive results associate with different variables in each study.
Sloan is careful to use a very measured voice when talking about religious issues. It is not his intent to attack religion itself as a social enterprise, but rather to show that attempts to scientifically quantify potential religiously-derived health benefits is an enterprise that is both scientifically bankrupt and demeaning to religion. He repeatedly channels the late Stephen Jay Gould, invoking the deceased author's principle of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" dozens of times, especially during the book's concluding chapters. Basically this concept states that science and religion represent to different paths that lead to two different kinds of truth and thus neither one has anything to say about the other. I would be tempted to argue that this idea only goes so far, but it largely works for the arguments that Sloan uses it to make.
If I had to name one complaint about this book, it would be that Sloan does little to address the backgrounds of some of the researchers involved in these pseudoscientific studies. While he is clear about noting which researchers have collaborated with each other and whatnot, he makes some tantalizing references to a handful of the scientists in question being affiliated with various prominent fundamentalist organizations. While I understand that it was Sloan's intention to discuss the underlying science itself rather than the personalities driving it, I still would have liked to have seen some of this elaborated on.
Overall this is a solid book that breaks down a complicated subject into bite-sized portions and helps the reader to look past the ongoing media hype that surrounds what amounts to shoddy research and wishful thinking on the part of its proponents.
|
 Point made, but ... ( rtofcentre2 )
The author has researched his subject well. Dr. Sloan presents a clear cut case for how those with a religious agenda sidestep / play fast and loose with the scientific method, and ignore it's tenets in order to push their agenda.
He dissects a number of "studies" demonstrating how lack of controls, data fishing, and various other methodological weaknesses distort results, and lead to fallacious claims of the health benefits of religious practices / spirituality. Additionally, he exposes Evangelical attempts to use doctors to proselytize and gain "recruits" among patients, a clear violation of ethics from any number of perspectives.
I gained a good insight to the issue.
On the down side: I found his style dry, text bookish, exasperatingly repetitive and geared to the lowest common denominator. Very little detail where more was warranted, too much detail where none was necessary.
We are introduced to ancient cultures belief in the supernatural and their perception of its connection to illness and health. These short and colorless chapters of a few paragraphs each are so basic as to be tantamount to a cut and paste from Wiki.
He refers back time and again to a handful of the same flawed studies and their authors to recount, again, the procedural defects and decry their questionable veracity.
He has this annoying idiosyncrasy of incessantly refering to points made in prior chapters, or promising to clarify and expand in future chapters. It's as though he is compelled to refresh the reader's memory or provide a coming attraction of whats to come.
Most chapters are summarized by a "what did we learn" recap in a bullet point check list style; preparation for tomorrow's quiz?
Some very simple concepts are explained ad nauseum, to the point where it was akin to whipping a dead horse. In a late chapter on the recent upsurge of religion courses being taught in medical schools, he went to extraordinary lengths to explain how the very few credits in religion ill prepare doctors, and make them no more qualfied, to offer religious guidance than any other layman. Fine. But he takes virtually an entire chapter to describe class hours / months, credit load, the various medical disciplines etc., etc., etc., to make the simple point. It was overkill to the point of tedium.
I found at least five instances where he committed the same errors as those he exposes, or contradicts himself, or asserts an embelished conclusion to a case study where no grounds for that conclusion existed.
His closing chapters included a lengthy tip of the hat, and what I can only describe as feigned respect, for religion as a meaningful and profound experience that is "demeaned" by trying to couple it with science, virtually gag worthy. It reads as though he is throwing a bone to theists in order to gain their support and approval for his position of separation of medicine and religion.
Bottom line: it's a short read and worth the few hours to get an insight to the potential threat that bad science promulgated by the religiously fanatical represent to the medical field and the future quality of healthcare in the US. But don't expect any "eureka" break throughs, or entertainment value. This reads like a series of lecture notes stretched out to fill a volume.
|
Very Effective Critique ( ralbin )
This clear and well organized book is aimed at a general audience. Sloan takes aim at the idea that aspects of religious participation (or more vaguely, spirituality) have concrete health benefits. This idea has led some enthusiasts to push for some melding of religion and medical practice. Sloan reviews carefully the actual data claimed to support these assertions. He does so in a clear style, providing basic information about what constitutes convincing data. He shows clearly that the evidence for putative health benefits of religion is quite slender and there is little to justify substantial changes in medical practice. Sloan then turns to a number of other issues, including both practical and theoretical barriers to introducing religious issues into practice. Sloan argues well that any major change in physician-patient relations is likely to impair other aspects of practice because of time constraints and that it is unlikely that medical education can really provide physicians with the requisite knowledge. The theoretical barriers are a series of ethical issues which really constitute some major problems. Unlike some other reviewers, I felt these sections are quite well done. Sloan has a good grasp of the realities and complexities of medical practice. Sloan is, I think, fair to those he criticizes and this book constitutes a very effective critique.
|
 Definitive summary of research ( wolfroder )
This is the definitive book on religion and medicine: they are different and do not mix very well. Most of the research on the effect of religious activity on health has been sloppy, and the results have been negative. Neither going to church nor prayer will guarantee better health or longer life.
Physicians have neither the time, nor the expertise to counsel patients on questions of religion, or meaning, or spirituality. For this there are other experts,-- ministers, priests, chaplains, etc. -- trained in the ministry and theology, as well as in counseling.
This is a very good book. It is especially solid on science and medical research, explaining what conclusions can realistically be drawn and what can not be drawn from the existing research, but also what is possible to research at all.
|
Enjoyable Read
I agree with points made by reviewers below, especially the criticism of Sloan's last two chapters in which he suggests that religion deserves a free pass from scientific inquiry. Christianity, for example, has been proven "false" on many points from the sciences of biology, archaeology, and history. Should archaeologists not try to prove or disprove the sometimes outrageous claims of the Bible followed by billions? Are archaeology and critical history not "science"?
Besides this, I would add one comment. I work as an RN and have met many, many doctors, both young and old. As a whole, physicians are the most irreverent group of people I've ever met! I chuckled even picturing the doctors I know getting "spiritual" with their patients (and, keep in mind, I live in Oklahoma, the Bible Belt if ever there was a place). Nurses and other auxillary staff also tend to be an undevout crowd as well. So, perhaps Sloan is making a proverbial mountain out of a molehill. It's telling that Sloan returns over and over again to the same few doctors in his book -- because, in reality, there is no groundswell towards an "Alliance of Religion and Medicine." There's no need to lose sleep over this issue.
Still, Sloan's work is appreciated because I have heard (and maybe even said in the past) that there is "strong evidence supporting the health benefits of religion." Now, I can no longer say that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addiction
