The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-01-25

to financial damages rather than criminal
prosecution But it must be shown that
good was not intended. to base a case for
Indictment.
Mccain on Criminal Law. paragrapb
$50, lays down the rule Of English law Con-
corning grounds on which to base a
charge of homicide. The paragraph
quoted brings up the collateral question Of
the liability of the parents. or guardians
or. children, or persons so reduced ment
ally by disease that they are unable to
consent 10 the treatment. Among the
grounds cited is failure to provide med
ical attendance for a sick child Author
tiles bearing on the case are cited in the
/ foOtnoteS. one of which declares that a
statute makes the provision of medicines
syllabus contains this language, as re-
quired by statute But it must appear
that death was accelerated by such neg
lect. (Regina VS.. Downes, l. Queens
Bench Decisions. D. 81 Another case cited
practically negatives the statute, for it is
held, aside from the statute, 1t is not
criminal thus to fail to call medical as
, s~istance, if it is in pursuance OF a relig-
ious conviction. ReSina vs.. Wagstaffe.
10 Cox, p. 530.)
IN the absence sof express statutory
provisions, it would seem that criminal
liability mo be alleged against a faith
healer The liability OF the controlling
persons of those unable 10 consent might
be made TO stick, but even this IS not so
strongly settled as to preclude escape.
Intent TO irjure or destroy seems to be
a prerequisite, ard who can say in cases
1 SlAOAA 10 lAlOSG uLAQEL Q4S(uSoAOAL that LILY
evil intent is manifested? In fact, the
converse is shown. These healers and
their adherentS may fly in the face of the
opinion of the world at large, but denial
OF that opinion does not necessarily in
cluQe 2 crime"
John f. Geeting is one of the members
OF the bar who has made a study OF the
Christian Science problem. Several years
ago, he investigated the question and pre-
pared q brief upon it. He holds that an
Indictment such as that found in the
Frederic case will NOT lie in this country
The whole thiug hinges on the question
OF intent. 1t has been held that II a man
honestly and faithfully does his best. he
Is not liable criminaily for the death
which enSUes. An ignorant quack Who
applies such remedies as he has faith in
and does all he can 10 relieve Is not TO be
prosecuted for ma~nSlaughter. Possibly
his treatment does injury. but unless it
can be shown that he Intended injury he
is not liable. \ skilled physician OF q
recognized and reputable school is re-
quired to make use OF all the knowledge
and skill he possesses. If he fails. he IS
liable financially at least, and If the neg
lect be gross enOug may be held Grim
inally. Even then it would more likely
be q case of misdemeanOr than a felony.
unless it could be shown he either in
tende 70 iniure or was so negligent n
careiessness.
Society, OF course, has the right to pro
tect itself against epidemic or grave
danger. In cases of infectious and con-
tagiOuS diseases. the authorities seem TO
have the power to take measures 10 pre-
such precautions, who is to say what is
proper and what improper treatment
Schools of medicine are numerous and
conflicting in their methods. For all tha
public knows they are equally sincere.
Yet none is uniformly successful or
death would cease. In cases such as the
one under discussion. usually the patient
is of adult years and consents TO the
treatment. The intent, 50 far as one can
CLEAN by what is done, is for good. mat
intent determines the liability
The authorities seem to agree that
faith cures of whatever kind are not
guilty Of such negligence as Will make
them liable TO Indictment. They perform
10 affirmative acts excepting praying and
the laying on of and They apDly TO
remedies which. in their nature, If unskil-
fully used, might produce injury How
ever much of a ScOffer a man may be, he
must admit that praying will do no harm
Society cannot interfere in the treatment
shown that society will be injured there
by. Society cannot prosecute after a
fatal termination of a treatment unless
society has been damaged. VINO can say
this is the case2 Would medical aid in any
case ave saved life? II seems 10 me
that the patients must be left to their
fates. They accept the treatment and
that is the end of it
According to the opinion of Joseph B.
David, no conviction would be possible
under the laws OF Illinois de goes further
ard expresses doubt that any statute
could lie passed which would intervene.
His opinion is predicted on the theory. or
course. that the victim consents 10 the
u can find nothing in the laws of this
state which max a conviction possible.
IN case such as that of Harold Frederic.
the patient consented 10 the treat
ment. il would be absolutely impossible
to convict.
PHYSICIANS OPINIONS.
Most Of what was said by the physicians
u~nfavorable 10 Christian Science. al
though taken Us a whole, the sum total
of their evidence is such that discriminat-
ing people can readily see, even con-
their statements in a light most
favorable to them. they are competed 10
admit that Christian Science IS not the
failure III its healing efficacy
would have the public believe it 20
be. The attempt of some of the PHI
sicianS at explaining the healing results
on the ground of therapeutic suggestion
is amusing 10 every Christian Scientist.
and 70 every one having the SlSneSJ con-
of the Christian Science method
OF healing. II Christian Scientists were 70
attempt 70 explain, for the information OF
the public, the exact manner in which
drugs taken into the system proceed 10
eliminate disease and to bring health out
of Sickness, and further TO elucicate all
minutiae of the practice OF medicine,
could not possibly seem more ridicu-
lOus in the eyes of the medical profession
do the physicians to the Christian
CClGLLlSL5 III LLClI dlLGllDLS ~ t&Dld4A LA1
moduS o%perandi of the Christian Science
method of treatment.
The first physician interviewed makes
this statement: That Christian Science
has produced cures cannot be denied. and
has been said OF its physiological
workings would so TO confirm this state.
ment."
Another physician said: Underlying il
is the ever-tO-be-fOund kernel of TRUTH,
the h~elpfulress of mind over matter
Another said: Public opinion is not
adrroG+ad nv aTDa~ianna TO the noirA
where any successful prosecution OF an
offending Christian Scientist could be
anticipated. This cult is largely sus-
tanned by many of our sO-called cultured
and must go the evolutionary way
Of these cults. If prosecutions cannOt be
successfully conducted under the laws We
have. it is useless 20 pass Others
Another said: \ statutory law can
these Christian Scientists. and it IS
veil that such is the case. The nrSJ prop
)sitiOn involved would be-What cOnStt-
.uteS the practice Of medicine2 And this
5 not defined, nor do l think it should
De-. It may be well enough to define thu
name rOund could be established on
which those practicing without Quathca~
would be liable to prosecution for
However. laws of this nature could
reach Christian Scientists. since thew
no pTetence to the use OF appHca-
Of medicine. Under the ommOn law
hey ave the GOd-given right for which
our forefathers fought, OF enjoying the
of happiness. which includes
in whatever manner or by whatever
means they choose. They can 90 out into
ne street or anywhere else and hire any
me they like 70 treat them, no matter
What their troubles.
Another arrived at the following con-
,lusiOn: The moment you attempt TO
egisl2te against Christian Scientists. that
Moment you make martyrs Of them It
5 absurd to hin that you can stop them
~ law. any more than you could stop any
rood old mother from making goose oil
lnd rubbing the sprainS and the sore
hroats of her n~eighbOrS.