Kruijthoff Dirk J, Bendien Elena, van der Kooi Cornelis, Glas Gerrit, Abma Tineke A
Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Center, and external PhD student in the Faculty of Theology, Vrije Universiteit (VU), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Leyden Academy on Vitality and Ageing, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Explore (NY). 2023 May-Jun;19(3):376-382. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2022.07.008. Epub 2022 Jul 26.
THE SETTING: between 2015 and 2020 a medical assessment team evaluated 27 reports of prayer healing in the Netherlands.
Three research questions were formulated. What are the medical and experiential findings? Are there medically remarkable and/or unexplained healings? Which explanatory frameworks can help us understand the findings?
The reported healings were analyzed using both medical files and patient narratives, as part of a case study research design compiled by a multidisciplinary research team. An independent team of five medical consultants, representing different fields of expertise, evaluated the 27 case files. According to criteria these were selected from a larger group of 83 received reports. Experiential data was obtained by in-depth interviews and analyzed. Instances of healing could be classified as 'medically remarkable' or 'medically unexplained'. Subsequent analysis was transdisciplinary.
Eleven of the 27 healings assessed were evaluated as 'medically remarkable', none were labelled as 'medically unexplained'. Recurring characteristics were common to some degree in all healings, whether 'medically remarkable' or not: a temporal connection with prayer, instantaneity and unexpectedness of healing, strong emotional and physical manifestations, and a sense of 'being overwhelmed' and transformed. The healings were invariably interpreted as acts of God. Positive effects have persisted for 5 to 33 years, with 2 relapses.
Our findings on remarkable healings do not fit well in the traditional biomedical conceptual framework. All healings exhibited important non-medical aspects, whether or not they were assessed as medically remarkable. We need a broader multi-perspective approach in which all relevant data is considered to be valuable, both experiential and objective. This so-called horizontal epistemology may be helpful when trying to understand the findings, and it may bring about mutual understanding between patients, health practitioners and relevant disciplines.
背景:2015年至2020年间,一个医学评估团队对荷兰27例祈祷治愈的报告进行了评估。
提出了三个研究问题。医学和经验性发现是什么?是否存在医学上显著的和/或无法解释的治愈案例?哪些解释框架可以帮助我们理解这些发现?
作为一个多学科研究团队编制的案例研究设计的一部分,使用医疗档案和患者叙述对报告的治愈案例进行分析。一个由五名医学顾问组成的独立团队,代表不同的专业领域,对这27个案例档案进行了评估。根据标准,这些案例是从收到的83份报告的较大群体中挑选出来的。通过深入访谈获得经验性数据并进行分析。治愈案例可分为“医学上显著的”或“医学上无法解释的”。随后的分析是跨学科的。
评估的27例治愈案例中有11例被评估为“医学上显著的”,没有一例被标记为“医学上无法解释的”。无论是否“医学上显著”,所有治愈案例在某种程度上都有一些共同的反复出现的特征:与祈祷的时间联系、治愈的即时性和意外性、强烈的情感和身体表现,以及“不知所措”和转变的感觉。这些治愈案例总是被解释为上帝的行为。积极效果持续了5至33年,有2例复发。
我们关于显著治愈案例的发现不太符合传统的生物医学概念框架。所有治愈案例都表现出重要的非医学方面,无论它们是否被评估为医学上显著的。我们需要一种更广泛的多视角方法,其中所有相关数据,无论是经验性的还是客观的,都被认为是有价值的。这种所谓的横向认识论在试图理解这些发现时可能会有所帮助,并且它可能会促进患者、健康从业者和相关学科之间的相互理解。