The patriot. [volume] (Indiana, Pa.) 1914-1955, 1917-09-01
HEALING BY PRAYER
NOT A CRIMINAL ACT,
SAYS JUDGE BARTLETT
Legislature Has No Power to
Make 1t a Crime to Thus
Treat Disease.

Editorial From the Christian Science SEN
tinel.l
Bench and Bar, a monthly magazine
for lawyers, published in New York
city, commenting editorially on the
Cole case recently decided by the New
York Court of Appeals calls special at
tention to the concurring opinion Of
Chief Judge Bartlett, in which he said:
Il concur in Judge Chases construction
Of the statute. But 1 would go farther.
I deny the power of the legislature to
make it crime to treat disease by
prayer" We quote from this most in
teresting comment as follows:-
This suggestion raises perhaps the most
interesting feature Of the case. Can the
attempted cure of disease by prayer be
constitutionally inhibited? That the treat
ment 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 manifestly
valid police measure. Both operate di-
rectly upon the body. The one admins
ters drugs; the other wields the knife.
If the doctor knows nothing of the effect
of his medicines upon the human body,
or the surgeon has no knowledge of anat-
omy, the results are likely to be disas-
trOus. knowledge on these points is es-
sential and the state has a right to re-
quire 1t.
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 orig
f,,o IN, ind hn NH
by treatment of the mind; and that even
the mental concepts resulting in what is
called disease are false and unreal, and
can be dispelled by the apprehension of
truth. treatment based upon such the
ories cannot result in malpractice upon
the body; and to a great extent the rea-
sons which necesstate the licensing of the
ordinary medical practitioner disappear.
There remains. however, the argument
from neglect-that the patient may resort
to the Christian Science practitioner, with
out benefit, whereas his case, if taken in
time, might have been cured by more IA
miliar methods. But how could the pa
tient be forced to resort to the established
school Of medicine? Again the distinction
I'm method is of vital Importance. A be-
lever in the use Of drugs might resort to
some unlicensed quack or harmful nos
trum 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. Chris
tian 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 disbelieVed in material meth
DDS, it is difficult to see how the legisla-
ture would protect him by forbidding the
Christian Scientist to practice. He could
not then resort to such practitioner,
but neither would he apply to the estab-
lished school Of medicine.
The question raised by Chief Judge
Bartlett seems to us an interesting one,
which is worthy Of serious consideration.
It will not arise in this state, however,
unless the legislature amends the public
health law IN the particular which came
under consideration in the Cole case.
Whether or not the amendment might
constitutionally be made the only justiti-
cation for such legislation is the proteC-
tion of the public health. If that is not
threatened by Christian Science practice
such practice ought not to be forbidden
Tho legislatures of ten other states, as the
opinion in the Cole case shows, have not
believed in the existence of any such dan
ger, for the Christian Science church is
expressly excepted from the scope of their
medical practice acts This is true IN
Maine. New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut North Carolina, North and
South Dakota, Kentucky, Tennessee and
Wisconsin.
Christian Scientists are indebted to
Bench and Bar for so clearly stating
the theory upon which laws have been
and are considered necessary for the
regulation of the practice of medicine
and surgery, and why the practice of
Christian Science is not under the
same necessity. Notwithstanding the
scores of attempts to define by statute
the practice of medicine in such a way
as to include Christian Science, it is
becoming more and more evident to the
courts and to the thinking people of the
United States that these two systems
are in no wise related, and in fact that
they have nothing whatever in common
except that both are depended upon to
heal the sick
But even on this common ground the
difference of method is so great that it
only tends to emphasize that Christian
Science is not the practice Of medicine.
One system is solidly material and ply
steal, both in its viewpoint and methods
as well as in the agencies which it en-
ploYs The other is-purely spiritual in
b5th principle and practice. To one the
healing of sick bodies is Alpha and
Omega-'the beginning and the end"
To the other the healing Of sickness is,
as Mrs. Eddy writes on page 2 OF