Rice University logo
 
Top blue bar image
The Blog for Medicine and Religion 202, Spring 2014
 

A Refection on Graham

April 24th, 2014 by gdh1

I was extremely moved by John Graham’s speech today in class. His stories of the little boys he treated were riveting, and I was astounded by his bravery. I am not sure I would ever be able to act logically and professionally when confronted with a little boy missing half his face, or with an arm dismembered. I appreciated the emphasis he placed on respecting other’s experiences and beliefs. Doctor’s should understand that religion plays an important role in the majority of their patient’s lives. Respect is key, and perhaps something that has been lacking in the modern medical practice, where patients are examined by the doctor in a brief period of minutes, and then left isolated in their beds to wallow in fear. It was obviously a very different time in the history of medicine. I doubt whether in today’s world a patient’s family would ever feel comfortable enough with the doctor to grab his hands and pray with him. Graham understands the power of belief, which is what caused him to up and leave medicine, in the pursuit of his spiritual calling. When he describes the presence at the edge of his bed during his conversion episode, he reminds us that this was his experience, and whether or not we believe it, he does, and it has played an essential role in the direction his life took. If doctor’s are going to truly gain the trust of a patient, they must realize that a patient’s beliefs may not coincide with their own, but it is not their place to question those beliefs. Physicians should try to understand the values patients hold closest to their hearts, which will allow them to form a closer bond, and gain the trust of the patient. I believe that medicine is a partnership between he healer and the healee, and both have responsibilities towards each other; the tighter their bond, the better the expected outcomes.

I was also interested by Graham calling into question the very existence of true atheists. His point being, when most people are confronted with a life or death experience, they pray to anything that can possible help to deliver them from suffering. I agree with this reflection, which could be used as evidence for the inherent spirituality of humans. Human spirituality is also supported by the fact that every civilization in history has had a religion. I believe that both of these points substantiate the existence of a vitalistic life force. At our core, we humans reach out in our moments of need to an intangible, mysterious higher power. In many studies, including those of Koenig, a healthy relationship with the divine has been shown to improve clinical outcomes. John Graham believes in his human spirit, and a divine spirit, and he knows he’s right because it is his belief, and is meaningful to his experience. There are more to human than just cogs and gears, if our lives are guided by a higher power. In John Graham’s case, he proudly states he was guided to become a doctor, guided to become a priest, and presumably guided to the reconcile the two.



Genesis 34-Caroline

April 23rd, 2014 by cks4

I was interested in Prof’s mention of Genesis 34 today, so I looked it up and was shocked by the time I had finished reading the second line. In the story Dinah, the daughter of Leah and Jacob, goes on a trip to “visit the daughters of the land”. On her trip Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite and prince of the country, sees her and rapes her. He then falls in love with her and tells his dad he wants to marry her. Hamor and Shechem then travel to Jacob’s house to ask for his daughter’s hand in marriage. Meanwhile, Jacob hears the news that his daughter has been raped and tells his sons when they come in from work in the fields. They’re furious.  Hamor and Shechem arrive after and ask for Jacob’s blessing of Shechem and Dinah, but before Jacob can respond, Dinah’s brothers say that in order for the kingdoms to unite under marriage, every man in their town, including Hamor and Shechem, must be circumcised. Hamor and Shechem happily agree and go back to their city to tell every man he must be circumcised. Every man obeys and is circumcised, but three days after the procedure while all men are still in pain, Dinah’s brothers Levi and Simeon attack the city slaying all of the males and looting the rest of the city while they’re at it. They take Dinah from Shechem’s house and take all of the women and children of the city with them as well. When this happens, Jacob who has been quiet throughout all of this is furious with his sons saying they have set him up for death against the rage of the angry Canaanites and Perizzites. The two brothers simply respond, well was it right for him to turn our sister into a prostitute?

This story is very controversial. It raises the question of who is the bad guy? I did some research and many people, when reviewing this story in the bible, regard Shechem as the good guy. This is a viewpoint of scholar Gerhard von Rad for example, and many other scholars that somewhat marginalizes the rape of Dinah. After the rape, something that was completely shameful in Jerusalem, Shechem falls in love with Dinah and proposes to her attempting to make their relationship holy. Shechem is then tricked by the brothers who take revenge for their sister killing the men and devastating the city.  Who do you see as the bad guy?

Also, why did the sons require the men to be circumcised? Was it simply a plan in order to make them weak and cause pain? Was it a representation of stripping the manliness out of men before they stole their wives and children? Was it used to gain a sense of power over the men? Was it even all of these combined? The story makes it seem as they did this in order to physiologically inhibit the men’s ability to fight back, but I’m sure it had intended psychological impacts on men as well.

Why was this story put in the bible in the first place? Is God justifying revenge in the case of family? The brothers could have easily said no to the marriage of Dinah and Shechem, but instead they decide to take everything from Harom and Schehem including their lives, somewhat symbolizing the rape of Dinah, taking her physically and mentally. Was the writer attempting to give notice to women’s rights and the need to stand up for them? Do you have any other ideas to give substance to this story?

Here is the link of Genesis 34 online:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/34?lang=eng

 



The Bible and Stress Relief

April 23rd, 2014 by gdh1

Much of class today centered around discussion of whether a belief in a god, or higher power correlates with diminished stress in life. Life would be care free, if one believed that a guardian angel or benevolent spirit was looking after them. A person can withstand most stress with the philosophy that, at the end of the day, everything is going to turn out alright. Following a recommendation made in class, I researched the book of Job, to understand a Christian perspective on God’s relation to us. The story of Job, describes god’s most devout follower, who was wealthy, and happy. Satan took notice of Job, and one day challenged God to a test of Job’s faith. He asserted that if Job’s life was made miserable he would reject god, and cure gods name. And so Satan killed Job’s sons, and took his fortune, and livestock, leaving him with nothing. However,  Job remained strong, and stated “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord”. Yet Satan was not satisfied with this outcome, and bet God that Job would relent if  his body was tortured, and so Job broke out in horrendously painful boils, and his wife told him to curse the name of the lord and die. Yet, Job remained strong, and said, “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” The rest of the book of Job is a philosophic discourse on God’s reasons for punishing Job. In the final section Job’s wealth and family are returned to him. God makes a number of speeches that indirectly answer the question of why he allowed Job to be punished. His answer is basically that he is mighty, and his methods are not to be questioned because we cannot understand them. He describes all of his very important jobs in the universe that Job cannot understand, such as controlling the Leviathan and the Behemoth. In my view Genesis, and the old testament are a terrible place to look for stress relief, as god appears fickle in nature, and capricious. In the modern mechanistic world of western medicine, I believe there is more stress relief to be found in truly understanding how the machinery of our immune system works to fight disease, rather than looking for stress relief from a higher being that is little understood, and has been the source of argument for 1000’s of years. People feel the most stress when they are presented with a problem or affliction that they do not understand and thus cannot act to fix. Thus, at a time before the development of modern science, god represented a relief device: an explanation for diseases that could not be understood mechanistically. The patient could then actively work to improve his condition by praying and repenting for his sins.

Personally, I would not put my faith in a god that gambles with the devil, using the lives of his believers as the chips. That sounds considerably more stressful to me. I believe that the stress relief received from religion comes from the community and congregation. The coming together of a group would perhaps be equally good for lowering blood pressure, or increasing mortality. I would like to see studies on the power of friendship.

I also read Genesis 34, about the rape of Dinah; however, I failed to see how it was relevant to the class discussion. It relates the story of Jacob’s daughter, who was strolling across her father’s land, when she was seen by a Canaanite prince, who lusted after her, and raped her. The Prince’s father approached Jacob’s sons, asking for the girl to be bound in marriage with his son. He agreed to pay any price to rectify the wrong, so the brothers demanded that the men from his city all become circumcised. A few days after the circumcision, when all the men were still recovering, two of Jacob’s sons swept through the city, killing every man, and looting all of their wealth. Jacob was angry at them for creating enemies of the Canaanites, however his sons replied, “Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?”.

I guess retribution is a common theme in both these stories; however, both also contain an exceptional amount of deceit, which is a major stressor. Perhaps the new testament would be a better place to look for stress relief.



Genesis 34 and the Origins of the Bible

April 23rd, 2014 by Michelle

As Prof mentioned in class, there are parts of the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, that portray very different stories and ideas than we normally associate with the Bible. For those of you who haven’t read Genesis 34 I will provide a brief summary. Here is the link if you want to read the full story though:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+34

Genesis 34 is the story of Dinah and the Shechemites. Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is raped by Shechem, the son of the Hivite ruler of the region. Shechem falls in love with Dinah, and goes to Jacob and Dinah’s brothers with the hopes of marrying her. Jacob does little to object, but Dinah’s brothers are furious and decide to trick Shechem and avenge their sister. They agree to let Shechem marry Dinah on the condition that Shechem and his father have all of their men circumcised. Two days after all of the men are circumcised and are still recovering, two of Dinah’s brothers attack the city and kill all of the men. They proceed to sack the city and take Dinah away. When Jacob expresses dismay at the brother’s actions and fear of repercussions, the brothers reply “should we have treated our sister like a prostitute?” What is more, in Genesis 35, it is stated that God protects the family from neighboring towns as they flee.

I was initially puzzled by the lesson that this story seems to convey. Rape is clearly condemned by God in this case, but does that mean that massacre and looting are endorsed as acceptable repercussions? This seems to go against many of the other morals in the Bible, most importantly the Ten Commandments which state “though shalt not kill.” In addition, the Old Testament and the New Testament represent God in very different ways. The Old Testament God is vengeful and harsh, while the New Testament God tends to be forgiving and loving towards his people. What accounts for these glaring discrepancies between different parts of the same religious text, and how can they still represent one cohesive set of religious views?

While reading the bible, it is important to keep in mind how the Bible came to exist. The theory of divine authorship asserts that the various books in the Bible were the word of God transmitted through and written by a human prophet. The 39 books chosen to be part of the Torah and Old Testament, and the 27 books chosen to comprise the New Testament are only the 66 most universally accepted books out of many more circulated writings. This full list wasn’t officially set forth until over three hundred years after the death of Christ. Although the list resulted from centuries of religious reflection, it is clear that some books were purposefully chosen and some were deliberately excluded. Whether or not you believe in the idea of divine authorship, this fact alone shows that the Bible may not be as representative of the whole of Christian writings as we often perceive it. It is also important to note the long time span between when the Old Testament and New Testament writings were authored. This could account for the dissimilarities in the portrayal of God in these two sections.

Although faith plays a large role in how you interpret religious writings, I think that evaluating how these writings came to exist is important to consider just as is evaluating your sources in scholarly works.

http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/how-were-the-books-of-the-bible-chosen/



Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy and Cancer Patients

April 20th, 2014 by Michelle

In his lecture on Friday Dr. Chaoul discussed the paradoxical nature of cancer. Faced with a reminder of their own mortality and possible death, cancer patients often find meaning and satisfaction in their lives where before they had none. Many find this meaning in a religious context, but this phenomenon extends beyond the boundaries of just spirituality.

Mechanistically, this could be explained as an adaptive mental adjustment that combats stress and depression that occur after a cancer diagnosis. As Dr. Chaoul and Dr. Cohen discussed, stress and depression have been shown to inhibit immune function and can contribute to the metastasis of cancer. However, this does not explain why so many people find meaning through religion and faith. A vitalistic explanation for this phenomenon could be that perhaps this renewed spirituality is preparing cancer patients for what is to come after death as they near the end of their life in this world.

As a result of this phenomenon, doctors have begun trying to guide cancer patients through steps with which people may find meaning in their lives after diagnosis. I found several articles that describe stories of individuals who have benefited from this meaning-centered therapy. This new form of psychotherapy aims to ease the emotional suffering that many patients experience during traditional chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Unlike other forms of integrative medicine we discussed such as massage, meditation, or acupuncture, this meaning-centered treatment aims to induce a naturally occurring mental adjustment that many patients may eventually reach. By guiding patients through a series of mental reflections and exercises, cancer patients can achieve a greater appreciation for their past, give meaning to their life while living with cancer, and have a greater acceptance of the future.

One article ends on another paradox, “You’d think that once people have found this new meaning in life, they wouldn’t want to let it go. But knowing their life has meaning and that it will continue beyond them seems to lessen that white-knuckle grip on life and give them a sense of peace.” It is with this attitude that doctors hope to help treat the emotional effects of cancer and prepare patients for whatever will come.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203547904574276434196118914

http://www.mskcc.org/blog/new-form-psychotherapy-might-ease-emotional-suffering-terminally-ill-patients



Organ Transplants and Cellular Memories

April 4th, 2014 by emn2

As Prof mentioned in class, many people who get organ transplants often “inherit” characteristics of the donor. When this was brought up in our last class, it seemed to be quickly dismissed as coincidence or learning about the donor through the surgeon, neighbor, etc. However, this idea intrigued me, so I did a bit of research. The first thing I found was an article written by Paul Pearsall, PhD, Gary E. Shwartz, PhD, and Linda E. Russek, PhD that examined this phenomena, different narratives, and one mechanistic explanation for it.

Some of these case studies include a man who received a transplant from a woman and afterward began to love the smell of feminine perfume and the color pink, both of which he disliked before, a sixteen month boy who called his donor’s parents (whom he had never met before) “Mama” and “Daddy”, singling the father out of a crowd, a man who formerly hated classical music but grew to love it after receiving a transplant from a devout classical music fan, and a man who formerly loved meat but hated it after receiving a transplant from a health store manager and vegetarian woman.

Over the past ten years, Pearsall has had 74 transplant patients who claimed this phenomena happened to them. Of course, there are many factors to take into account, such as normal personality changes/truth in anecdotal evidence, but the fact that so many people have claimed to have this happened means that the phenomena does deserve some attention.

Past mechanistic explanations for this phenomena have included effects of immunosuppressant drugs,  psychosocial drugs, and pre-existing pathopsychology of the patients. This article, however, identified a new mexhanistic explanation for this phenomena. This explanation is called “living systems theory”, which posits that “all living cells possess “memory” and “decider” functional subsystems within them”. The recent integration of systems theory with the concept of dynamical energy systems theory allows us to hypothesize that all dynamical systems (i.e. from cells –> tissues –> organs) store information and energy to various degrees. Thus, all cells have “memory” through feedback loops.  As stated in the article, “The systemic memory mechanism has been applied to a variety of controversial and seemingly anomalous observations in complementary and alternative medicine, including homoeopathy. It also makes new predictions. One prediction is that sensitive recipients of transplanted organs can experience aspects of the donor’s personal history stored in the transplanted tissues”. 

Now obviously this isn’t a complete explanation. Even if cells had feedback loops and memories, this does not explain how someone could share real, tangible memories with their donor, but it could explain instances of, for example, a meat eater no longer being able to eat meat. I believe a complete mechanistic explanation will need to incorporate the DNA of the donor being placed into the recipient, especially if it holds true that memories can be passed on through DNA.

A vitalistic explanation of this phenomena could be that the recipient is receiving a piece of the soul of the person who gave them their organ. If soul and mind are connected, then soul and personality could be as well, and this would explain why part of the personality is passed on. I, however, do not believe this is the case, as I believe if there is such thing as a soul, it is completely intertwined with the mind of the person, and thus when the mind/consciousness dies, the soul moves on instead of lingering with remaining living cells.

What do you all think about these different ways of explaining the phenomena? Do you believe the phenomena is real at all?

-Elise



Science proves the soul exists?

April 4th, 2014 by Jamie

These articles present  ideas about consciousness being derived from microtubules in neurons which act as sites of quantum processing, but I am hesitant to believe these theories even if other phenomenon, like bird navigation and photosynthesis, have been connected to other quantum explanations. Supposedly, the quantum information can return to the universe at a person’s death, but also return to the body once it has been resuscitated explaining NDEs. The idea is that this quantum information can exist outside of the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul which I think is an odd way of conceptualizing the soul. I think  this demonstrates some of the same concerns we have discussed in class involving how to define something like the soul and consciousness.

I am not really familiar with quantum physics and so that does keep me from completely understanding the theories presented. There are some things that occur at the quantum level which do not follow the same rules of understanding we have for our everyday world, and a soul is something that is not readily observed. I think to some extent it is just trying to equate two things that are hard to understand and explain in terms of what we normally observe in everyday life.

I don’t understand why things like the soul cannot be discussed and accepted as something separate and outside of science. There is a certain preoccupation with justifying beliefs using accepted venues and vocabulary where science is seen as the greatest authority and justification. However, I think  sometimes that by trying to prove something through science it can alter the meaning or essence of a concept especially for something like the soul.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/can-science-explain-the-s_b_675107.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/soul-after-death-hameroff-penrose_n_2034711.html



Reconsidering NDEs

March 25th, 2014 by gdh1

After the discussion and lecture on Friday, I feel obligated to reconsider some of my view of Near Death Experiences. Initially, I saw the Reverend as a biased source, using NDE’s to promote his religion over others, but as the lecture went on, I saw him as a man who was struggling to give voice to a section of the population that longs for some confirmation of their collective experience.

The stories that Reverend Price brought forth were astounding, and although I did not believe many of them, I developed a new understanding of the importance of NDE’s. For example, I cannot believe the stories about men and women who have had NDE’s also having supernatural powers, such as draining IPhone batteries, or diagnosing diseases with a 100% success rate. However, I can believe in NDE’s being such powerful experiences that they give men and women new hope and drive to thrive in our chaotic modern society. I was moved by the Reverend’s story about the boy who was struck with lightning, and who was so affected that he did not speak for over a years before the Reverand himself asked him about his experience. The boy described Angels standing over him, and guarding him from the lightning. I think these are wonderful visions that are further evidence of the link between our brain and religion. Our brain is able to create images and visions that coincide with the beliefs we hold most dear. In Reverend Price’s discussions with non-Christian experiencers of NDE’s many of them stated they had seen their father; or the person that was most loving in their family. Our brain takes what we hold closest to our hearts, and uses those sentiments in our most dire moments, creating visions of parents, Angels, or psychedelic butterfly rides.

I believe there is a link between the charismatic healer phenomenon of Greatrakes, Mesmer, Tribal Shamans, and the lady who was endowed with the ability to diagnose any disease or malady. If you confidently suggest an explanation or cure, you are exerting incredible influence on whomever is suffering from the affliction. I believe the pastor was influenced by the woman’s suggestion of his knee infection, perhaps even more than most, due to his firm belief in NDE’s.

I felt that the pastors use of the Gallup poll of the 1980’s was a bit misleading, as it actually recorded how many Americans had come very extremely to death. It was not asking whether they had experienced an NDE, which is a multistep event, (a tunnel, an out of body experience, a bright light, a life review, an understanding that it is not yet their time, and a return to the body). I cannot disprove any of the Reverend’s stories, nor explain them mechanistically using the physical laws of our universe, thus they lie in the vitalistic realm of “nonsense”. They are unbelievable and often times nonsensical; however, they are so widespread and consistent in nature that it would be foolish to deny them completely. I will satisfy myself with the knowledge that human power of belief far outstretches the limits of modern science, and therefore should not yet be understood mechanistically. These experiences are life defining for men and women across the world, and should be given the due respect that the Reverand has attributed them. Many of these people are just looking for someone to speak with, who can partially understand what they went through, and how significant it was to their life.



Vesalius Image

March 14th, 2014 by Linh

"Muscles, deep dissection. Dissection of the mouth, mandible divided and reflected to show palate and tongue. Male figure, in vivo, anterior view."

Muscles, deep dissection. Dissection of the mouth, mandible divided and reflected to show palate and tongue. Male figure, in vivo, anterior view.

http://link.library.utoronto.ca/anatomia/application/digobject.cfm?PlateNum=RBAI003-0014&book_id=RBAI003&plate_id=0014&size=0&query=Muscles.&browsetype=Title&startrow=1



Sermons with Snakes and Refusal of Medical Treatment in Religious Ceremony

March 13th, 2014 by kam9

Snake handling pastors root their practice in the bible. These pastors believe that God will protect them from any attempt the snake makes to harm them while handling, if they are right and just.

It is interesting to me how stringently these pastors adhere to their beliefs. They seem to accept most other modern technologies, all medical equipment and treatment and intervention included. Yet the pastor who recently died from a snake bite during a sermon, refused medical treatment and instead went home to die.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/23/cody-coots-snake-salvation_n_4844002.html

The mechanistic explanation for his death: A snake, a naturally predatory animal, did what any snake is biologically oriented to do: attack another animal. The pastor died because he did not receive antivenom, which cancels the deadly properties of rattlesnake venom.

The vitalistic explanation, however, is that God saw some transgression in the pastor’s life, and ceased to protect him from the snake. Where there had previously been an intangible force field of sorts between the snake and the pastor, there was none at that point, and the snake bit him. The pastor died because in order for his soul to be saved down the line, he had to face his punishment without intervention. In this case, God dictates death, and medical intervention is preventing a natural occurrence.

 

Why is it that the pastor’s son is undeterred from handling snakes after his father’s death? (See news article below)

How does the news article by a christian source differ from a news article by a secular source? Does one seem to lean more towards the vitalistic or mechanistic?

Would it conflict with the pastor’s beliefs for him to seek medical treatment?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/snake-salvation-church-to-continue-snake-handling-after-pastor-coots-death-from-bite-son-takes-over-115068/