An article in the New England Journal of Medicine for June 22 questions the current opinion in the United States that religious and spiritual considerations should be an integral part of medical care.
The popular press has published many articles claiming that religious faith and practice promote comfort, healing or both, and there has been a report that 77 per cent of hospitalised patients wanted their physicians to consider their spiritual needs as well as their medical requirements. It is a sign of the times that nearly 30 medical schools in the US now offer courses on religion, spirituality and health. The commentary, by a group of doctors and chaplains from New York, argues that attempts by physicians to integrate religious interests into medical practice may not be so well justified or simple as the general literature suggests.
There is certainly some evidence that spiritual provisions promote health, although doubt has been thrown on the methodology of investigations. It is pointed out that religious practices may be disruptive as well as healing. Why doctors should be asked to incorporate spiritual comfort as part of medical care is not clear. "Religion and science, and religion and medicine, exist in different domains and are qualitatively different."
Moreover, it would be unwise to suggest that the value of religion derives from any effects it might have on physical health. "Religion is more than a collection of views and practices, and its value cannot be determined instrumentally; it is a spiritual way of being in the world."
Undoubtedly, recovery from illness, and the sufferer's attitude to illness, can be greatly enhanced by the spiritual resources available. Yet that is no good reason why the medical healer should usurp the legitimate place of the spiritual healer in the overall welfare of a sick individual. Physicians would be up in arms if a minister of religion claimed the right to prescribe medicines for the patient; and quite rightly, too.