Which is the grabber headline here?

Nonreligious British physicians let -- or lead - their severely ill patients die earlier than religious docs do.

Or

Religious British physicians may prolong dying patients pain.

Associated Press led with the first concept, but is the real story the second one?

In a random mail survey of more than 3,700 doctors, a professor at the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, sent a mail survey to than 3,700 doctors, chiefly neurologists, gerontologists and palliative care specialists, asking how they took care of their last terminal patient.

According to the Associated Press, the study, funded by Britain's National Council for Palliative Care and released this week online in the Journal of Medical Ethics finds:

Doctors who described themselves as "extremely" or "very nonreligious" were nearly twice as likely to report having made decisions like providing continuous deep sedation, which could accelerate a patient's death.

But the study also found..

Doctors who were religious were much less likely to have talked about end of life treatment decisions with their patients.

To ensure doctors are acting in accordance with their patients' wishes, the study's author, Dr. Clive Seale wrote that "nonreligious doctors should confess their predilections to their patients."

Really? But religious doctors don't need to do that?

Nowhere does AP mention the proportion of religious to irreligious doctors -- or the religious or atheist views of patients -- in the study based in a nation where church attendance is about 10%. So, there is actually no way to tell whether the irreligious docs are, in fact, following the express wishes of patients or whether religious doctors, by not discussing patient's wishes, are prolonging their pain.

Have you ever asked a doctor about his or her religious values and how they might shape the care they offer you or a loved one? What happens if the doctor's values and yours are not in sync?