The record-union., 1898-11-19

%-Cb N-~J JOA %1AAo44 4AOI NA505C llAC SCI =
vices of a homeopath or an osteopath,
or an eclectic or a hydropath? Yet all
these are schools of healing regularly
established, having large following and
effecting cures.
The contention is that Frederic's life
could have been saved, had his attend
ants secured the services of a regular
physician of any Of the we'll estab-
lished schools in treating the man.
That as they refused and neglected to
do so, they are responsible for his death.
But how can it be shown to a legal
certainty that any school of medicine
or any system of treatment would have
restored the man to health? The
probability may be established, but are
people to be tried for loss of human
life by neglect or wrong treatment on
a conjectural proposition? They are
to be tried and condemned for mall
practice. for such treatment as the law
condemns as criminal, for instance the
attempt to thwart the orderly pro-
eesses of nature, as in the procuring of
abortion.
Suppose the Christian Scientists pro-
duce on the trial proofs of cures effect
ed under their treatment However
absurd it may be, however much it may
fly in the face of science, who shall say
that the patient would have recovered
if not treated by the prayer doctors and
faith inspirers, or that such treatment
as Christian Science applies did not ef-
feet the cure, or that other treatment
would have restored him. The answer is
Of course, that the law does treat of
probabilities, based upon human expert
ence and good reason.
The Tacoma Ledger in a thought
full article on the subject, suggests that
as the law regards preservation of hu-
man life with extreme tenderness and
solicitude, it should be the Office of the
law to prohibit treatments which are
not recognized by the most advanced
science as legitimate and reasonable. 1t
demands the enactment of laws, there
fore, for the protection of human life
from the dangers of such treatment as
is not considered by reputable schools
proper.
To a certain extent the law does that
now by demanding the licensing of ply
sicians, and refusing to those who do
not produce evidences of skill in GER
tain directions the privilege of pre-
scribing treatment for the sick In
some Of the States laws of this order
are very severe, and in some very un-
just. It has been found also that they
give rise to battles royal between
schools of medicine, which result in the
admission of nearly all classes of heal
ers who organize and maintain asso-
Citations and colleges But no where
is the Christian Scientist licensed, nor
does he ask to be, since he lays no
claim to use of drugs or any human
devices or remedies.
Suppose ones family treats him when
he is i'll, and does so with perfect good
faith, holding the call of a physician
to be unnecessary, and that home treat
ment is all that is needful, and still the
patient dies. To what degree of re-
sponsibility is the family to be held?
Under the English law it is understood
that liability attaches to whoever by
neglect to apply skill, or to give due
attention to the sick man, thereby per-
nits his death to take place, as well
as to those who criminaIly cause death
And that is the rule of the common law
with us.
Nevertheless we see a most intricate
and interesting involvement of reason
Here the man believed in Christian
Science. He requested it's application
to his case But after he had become
so low as to be incapable Of express
ing a wish soundly as to his own case,
his friends We're refused access to him
to ascertain his true condition, and re-
fusal to permit regular physicians to
visit him and attempt to save him was
persisted in, and therein resides the
liability which it is proposed to Grim
inally apply to the healers who had
Frederic's sickness in hand.
There was a. case bearing some re-
semblance to Frederic's, in a southern
county of this State a few years ago.
But there the victim Of prayer and
faith was an infant, and its Christian
Science healer was it's father The
child could express no desire and exer-
else no Judgment in the matter. 1t IS
not now recalled what was done with
the parent who refused to permit the
usual remedies for diphtheria to be
used in the case of his infant child; but
we remember that public opinion con-
demned the parents without measure.
It is not q closed question whether
one can be held responsible for failure
or refusal to employ a physician where
death results in consequence of fail
ure to take such precaution. In Eng
| land it would seem to be closed and
settled, for there, no matter how poor
the party is. means are provided by the
community for treatment being given
to the sick person.
No one ever before this day has look
ed upon the OK as real factor in
ae0nonay Rl1t down in the cotton fields