The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-07-15

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUS-Sir: In the
letter Of Mr.. W. A. burlington. published in
to-day's Sun. entitled christian Science and
the Law" an account is given of two recent
unsuccessful attempts to broaden by legsla-
tion the meaning Of the phrase "practcing
medicine" SO as to embrace the acts of those
who attempt to combat and cure disease by
faith" whatever that term may be explained
to mean. fully agree with the writer that the
State is not without remedy against these peo-
pie under existing law. In the case of tho
commonwealth W. Pierce, reported in 1913
/ MASSACHUSETTS, Reports. at pages 1I5 to lsl
! physician and being called to attend Il sick
woman caused her. with her consent. to he Kept
days, moro or less which bit o science" caused
her death; This scientist was indicted for
was unanimously affirmed hy tho Suprems
| judicial Court OF massachusetts. 1t was held
that the scientist was guilty Of mansIaugh.
| ter even though he acted with the consent Of
the victim OF his science" and with no evil
intent. and did not know Of the deadly tend
G"rous tendency. The defendants counsel in
that case relied upon the theory that IF the
est purpose and intent to cure tho deceased, he
| Is not Guiltyot this offence, however gross his
ignor3mr" of the quality and tendency Of the
ease, or both TO sustain thai propo.iton The
va, Thompson q Mass. 1874, in which it was
said: To constitute manslaughter the kill
ing must have been a consequence Of some un-
| hibits any man from prescr bling Cor sick
| person with his consent. il he honestly intends
to , cure him by his PRESCRIPTION.
court in a mastery ,oEni"n hy Mr.. Justice
Holmes. who said: III it means that the Kin
| ing must be the consequence" Of an act which is
| unlawful for independent reasons apart from
its likelihood to Kill. it is wrong, such may
| once have been the law. hut for long time it
has been Just as fully. and attcrly, W" may add.
much more willingly. recognized that man
otherwise Lawful acts reckless sly. as that he may
by doing acts unlawful furlndcrrnd"nt reasons.
from OF which death accidentally eniues"
reck less in man Of reasonable prudence was
held TO apply in this crimingl case. On this
point Mr. Justice Holmes said:
In dealing with man who has no special train
ing. the question wh"thvr his act would he r"ckl
~ man 81 ordinary rrnt"nc. Is "k}hTn'Iy "iu'va-
common experience shows 10 attend the act unltr
dlt'er,nce is that the latter inquiry is zti NOR H.
Niously external 10 the estimate formed by the actor
personally than the former. =
We cannot recognize privilege 10 do acta mani
feslv endsngtrlmg human life ON the ground OF
When the defendant applied kerosene to tn" per
ron l Of me deceased IN way which The jury have
and unressohahly endangerng life according T.
could not justify by her conSsnt and Which, mere.
fore. Wa an assault Notwithstanding that con-
A. We have intimated above an allegation that the
defendant knew Of the deadly tendency Of the kcro
scIlt was h't 'Hly hhh''e-HhTN pNt Improper.
This. decision would seem to negative the
Scientist may. IL he So" at. rely solely upon
mental processes" ..faithi?t or ,.'srien-
tst who undertook to trent case Of stran-
gulation or contagious dis"nsc. hy wholly
mental processes would he guilty of the crime
Of murder or OF manslaughtcr. according to
the degree OF danger attending til" treat
ment." II the treatment resulted fatally GER
tainy in Massachusetts and probably III New
York.
only regret that in an article in which find
So much TO agree with there is an attack upon
iroi. james y Harvard UpiV"rslty. one OF the
spoken of with respect Ivy European scholars.
The author Of those fascinating essays. The
viii to Believe am" Human Immortality. is
not only an eminent psycholugi-t hutatrain"d
student Of m"dicin" and presumably knew
That he was talking about If he said that nl"ii-
ono was not a "nuish"d science" OF the
merits of the particular act referred TO know
nothing. joins QUINN.
80 WALL STREET. July Il.