The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-01-26
TIE DUPE CAN'T SUE PEALER
FOR DAM iGES FOR NOT HEALING
ACCORDING TO EDDY.
sew Hampshire Case Of Appendicitis
and Christian Science-Credultty OF
the Patient Taken by the Court to
Count for Contributory Negligence.


The Supreme Court Of New Hampshire,
In recent opinion has held that while
Christian Science healers may set up their
rsH rous teachings. practices or beliefs as
defence to charges Of infraction OF the
criminal laws yet, on the other hand, persons
who knowingly submit themselves TO the
PRACTICES Of the "healers. must not expect
10 recover money damages for any in
nnous consequence that may arise.
The case IN point was a suit brought
hy Mrs Stead, now 90 years old against
ore Tomlinson. a Christian Science healer.
. set out in the New Hampshire reports,
Mrs Stead had an attack OF appendicitis
No April. 1898. She had II treated by her
regular medical practitioner, who effected
A cure In the course OF several months.
The following year Mrs Stead became
interested in the doctrines Of Christian
Science and attended number OF meet
ings at which Tomlinson told OF the Won
derful cures he had performed. In No
vember 1890, Mrs, Stead, who from her
nasl experience had acquired considera-
BE knowledge OF the symptoms of appen-
dicitis, became convinced that another
attack was impending.
her symptoms and of her dread Of surgi-
col operation Tonlinson assured her that
ne could heal her and that an operation
would be unnecessary. She then employed
him 20 trent her, relying upon his powers
and her faith in Christian Science.
Tomlinsons curative methods we're sim
pie Mrs. Stead was to take no medicine,
10 continue her usual diet Of solids and TO
take her accustomed exercise. He d.
rected her TO read Mrs. Eddy's work.
4 4 IL III. Tl. AZ
lIgiously Tomlinson himself admins
tered treatment by sitting in front OF her
daily for some hours, in an attitude OF
prayer, or reading extracts to her from
Mrs. Eddy's book.
Mrs Stead kept up the healing treatment
for several days, only TO find her illness
growing worse and her symptoms more
pronounced. Finally she dismissed the
healer, sent for her family doctor, sub
nlitted to an operation and was cured.
Then she sued the healer for damages.
alleging violation Of contract, negligence
and deceit
On the trial IL was shown that had Tom
linson's methods been persisted in. cure
might have become impossible. Mrs. Stead
admitted that she knew that Tomlinson
made no claim to any knowledge OF medi-
cine or surgery. that he relied solely on
the power OF God to heal disease, and that
his advice and treatment were contrary
TO those she would have received from
physician She testified that she employed
him because she believed he could cure
her, and that her belief was based upon
bis representations as to the efficacy OF his
treatment in other cases. She had no
doubt Of his sincerity or Of her own belief
in Christian Science when she employed
him, she said.
The trial court held that IL there had been
any negligence on Tomlnson's part, Mrs.
stead. by submitting herself voluntarily
TO this peculiar form OF healing, had con-
tributed to the negligence. II was also
held that there had been no deceit, because,
though Tomlinson had assured her he could
ana would cure her, he had not deliberately
or fraudulently misled her, since she had
implicit faith in what he said. Views such
as these, remarks the reviewing Court,
would relieve the courts from ifying the
vague question whether Christian Science
healer had correctly administered his own
system. Continuing the Court says
Assuming (witholt deoi1lngl that such
treatment Il forbidden by the law, which
makes the killing OF a human being BY ell-
provision Of the common law which makes
II unlawful for any one 10 do what Is liable
10 andaneer the life or health OF others, and
that the cuty 81 not doing what Is iorbidden
Do, either proyision was imposed on the de-
iendau' for mo plaintiffs benefit, the ques-
ton still remains whether the plaintirs own
wrong contributed to cause her injuries,
II u elementary that II i was illegal Tor
the defendant 10 treat the plaintiff as be did.
IL was equally lliegal Tor nsT eltneT 70 KNOW
ingly employ him TO give her such treat
nent or 10 consenteo be so treated SO far
as the evidence goes. her knowledge In re-
spAct 10 the disease from which she was suf-
ferilg and the treatment prescribed for II by
regular physicians in good standing. and
IN respect 10 the way the defendant, pro-
uoSed 10 treat her was at least equal 10 his.
IL does not follow a. matter or law IF ON
In thls action on the count in negligence
hat the defendant would not have been
guilty Of manslRught II the plaintiff had
died from the effects OF his trea tment.