Fulton County tribune. (Wauseon, Ohio) 1883-1925, 1916-12-15
'oorH BUSINESS
STAT Auditor, Count.

From the Christian d., lila l.
mel, issue of November 25th, we CLEAN
the following interesting information
in regard to the legal status of the
method of healing practiced by the
Christian Scientists, in the State of
New York. A case involving the heal
ing of disease by the Christian Science
method has recently been decided by
the New York Court of Appeals in
which decision the court held that the
practice of healing disease by prayer
was not a violation of the Statutes
of that State. In the concurring opin-
ion of Chief Judge Bartlett of the
above named court, is this statement.
Il concur in Judge Chase's construc-
ton of the statute. But l would go
farther. l deny the power of the
legislature to make it a crime to treat
disease by prayer" In commenting
on this statement the "Bench and
Bar" lawyers magazine published in
New York City, gives the following
discussion of the question from legal
point of view:
This suggestion raises perhaps the
most interesting feature of the case.
Can the attempted cure of disease by
prayer be constitutionally inhibited
That the treatment of disease so
closely concerns the public health as
to come within the police power of
the state is, of course, too plain for
serious argument. The licensing of
physicians and surgeons is manfestly
valid police measure. Both operate
directly upon the body. The one ad-
ministers drugs; the other wields the
knife. If the doctor knows nothing of
the effect of his medicine upon the
human body, or the surgeon has no
knowledge of anatomy, the results are
likely to be disastrous. knowledge
on these points is essential, and the
state has a right to require it.
The case Of the Christian Scientist
is radically different. He does not
operate upon the body at all. He
even denies its existence. His theory
is, that disease originates in the mind
and can be cured only by treatment
of the mind; and that even the. mem
tai concepts resulting in what is call
ed disease are false and unreal, and
can be dispelled by the apprehension
of truth. A treatment based upon
such theories cannot result in mall
practice upon the body; and to a great
extent the reasons which necessitate
the licensing of the ordinary medical
practitioner disappear.
There remains, however, the argu-
ment from neglect-that the patient
may resort to the Christian Science
practitioner, without benefit, whereas
his case, if taken in time, might have
been cured by more familiar methods.
But how could the patient be forced
to resort to the established school of
medicine? Again the distinction in
method is of vital Importance. A be-
lever in the use of drugs might re-
sort to some unlicensed quack or
harmful nostrum, and receive serious
injury. In his case there might have
been protection IN a law forbidding
the quack to practice, or preventing
the sale of the nostrum. Christian
Science, however, holds out no hope
to such a person. His belief that the
seat of the disease is in the body, and
beyond the control of the mind, would
prevent his resorting to it. On the
other hand, if the patient did believe
in the healing power of mind, and dis
believed in material methods, it is
difficult to see how the legislature
would protect him by forbidding the
christian Scientist to practice. He
could not then resort to such prac-
titioner, but neither would he apply
to the established school of medicine
The question raised by Chief Judge
| Bartlett seems to US an interesting
one, which is worthy of serious con-
sideration. 1t will not arise in this
state, however, unless the legislature
amends the public health law in the
particular which came under consider
alton in the Cole case. Whether OF
not the amendment might constitu
tionally be made, the only justifica
ton for such legislation is the pro
lection of the public health. If tina
is not threatened by Christian Science
practice, such practice ought not t.
be forbidden. The legislature O.
ten other states, as the opinion in th'
Cole case shows, have not believed il
the existence of any such danger, fo
the Christian Science church is ex
pressly excepted from the scope o
their medical practice acts. This i
true in Maine, New Hampshire, Mas
sachusetts, Connecticut, North Caro-
! lima, North and South Dakota, Ken
lucky, Tennessee and Wisconsin"