The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-05-28
RELIGION, SCIENCE
ISSUE IN BATTLE
Continued From Page II

dEC ~
legs and arms, have gained a pound
a day. There is every indication
they will live.
Two Of the South Bend doctors in
attendance announced they should
be left to die of neglect. They were
DR.. Walter Baker and DR.. H. S.
Campbell
The mother, who nearly died when
the babies were born. has asked they
be brought home for her to care for
and nurse. Doctors-science-op-
posed this. keeping them at st. Jo-
seph's Hospital, feeding them by ar
tficial methods, keeping them alive.
Famous Trial Recalled
The question involved the merits
of the arguments in trial of DIR. Har-
old f. Blazer, physician.slayer of his
human husk" daughter, at Little
ton, Colo. The jury disagreed. I'M
able to decide whether he should be
punished. The prosecutor dismissed
the murder charge.
Rabbi Morris Feuerlicht. 1904
Washington Blvd, member OF the
State board of charities, which is
charged with the care Of most OF
this States misfits declared the
case strikes at the heart of the
merits of the argument between
science and religion. He said the
religious mandate should prevail, be
cause our governmental institutions
are based on religion.
DIR. Herman G.. Morgan, secretary
of the indianapolis board of health,
said there was weight to sciences
argument that Of the children should
die, but that he personally was too
old-fashioned to approve Of It,"
An eminent medical authority,
whose opinion is given without men
ton of his name, prohibited by the
ethical code Of the Marion County
Medical Association. said:
II do not believe any Of us have
any right, whatsoever, to assume the
duty Of judging the acts of the
Deity. Life has been given these
children. We have no right to take
it.
I'VE are not competent to judge
who should live and who should die.
DR. Morgan said:
ANY place where human life ex-
lists we have always been taught in
the profession to try to conserve 1t.
The Animal Kingdom
There may be some weight. how
ever, to the argument that the use
less should be destroyed. An illustra-
ton of this weight is contained in
tho practice in the animal kingdom.
There, when a monstrosity is born,
or an animal seriously injured, it is
destroyed.
but I don't know whether we
have reached the point OF being able
to Judge whether human life should
be taken. Personally, I guess I am
old-fashioned enough to oppose
taking human life. Instead, I guess,
we should do all that can be done to
preserve It,"
Rabbi Feuerlicht said:
Science says it would be merci-
full to dispose Of them.
Religion advances the divine as
pect upon which our institutions of
government are based.
Must Harbor Unfit
Religion says we must harbor the
unfit, despite the burden.
Having been born, these children
have a right to live, because no one
can accurately foretell the future.
Science. II 1t had been as far ad-
vanced then as 1t is now, likely
would have advocated death for the
original Siamese twins.
mo one being able to foretell the
future, they were allowed to live.
and they proved useful.
"They advanced the science Of
biology.
Now comes another case. Both
science and religion are right in
their province.
Science champions the theory OF
survival of the fittest.
Religion champions the theory OF
sheltering the unfit.
"This child, or these children,