Does religion lead to more aggressive medical care?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Terminally ill cancer patients who lean heavily on religion to deal with their disease are about three times more likely than others in their shoes to receive aggressive treatment during their final days, according to a new study.

"Patients who rely more heavily on religion to cope are more likely to receive intensive life-prolonging care at the end of life," says Andrea Phelps, a senior internal medicine resident at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Mass. and co-author of the study published online yesterday in JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Phelps and her colleagues based their finding on interviews of more than 300 terminally ill patients being treated at cancer centers (in Connecticut, Texas, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire) about their use of religion as a coping mechanism. Among their queries: whether the patients were "seeking God's love and care" or were "looking for a stronger connection with God."

All of the patients died during the course of the study; after their deaths, the researchers reviewed their medical records and interviewed doctors, nurses, family members and other caregivers to find out if during their last week of life they were placed on ventilators (breathing machines) or received other intensive life-prolonging treatments such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Their findings: 14 percent (or 24) of the 176 so-called religious copers received life-prolonging care compared with only 4 percent (or seven) of the 167 other patients.

"Religious copers may choose aggressive therapies because they believe that God could use the therapy to provide divine healing, or they hope for a miraculous cure while intensive medical care prolongs life," the scientists speculate in the study.

Study co-author Holly Prigerson, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Mass., says previous research suggests that in addition to hiking hospital bills, heroic life-saving measures may worsen a patient's end-of-life experience.

"You're putting patients through a pretty burdensome treatment." Phelps says. "The focus is not so much on comfort, but on prolonging life." She notes that heroic life-saving procedures often cause patients additional physical and emotional pain.

Image © iStockphoto/rafalulicki

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe