Article December 1, 1898 Issue

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BEFORE THE LAW

New York Law Journal

[From the New York Law Journal, the official law paper of New York city, we republish the following, under the above title.]

The death of Mr. Harold Frederic, in London, and the arraignment of persons attending him during his last illness upon a charge of manslaughter, have served to direct universal attention to the subject of Christian Science. Some of the newspapers have contained articles, not only approving of the criminal charge preferred in the present case, but also advocating legislation specifically prohibiting the practice of real or supposed therapeutic arts by Christian Scientists. We doubt whether the latter suggestion would be practicable or just. Christian Science has already been brought into court in this country several times. Probably the most recent American case touching the subject is State v. Mylod, in the Supreme Court of Rhode Island (July. 1898, 40 Atl. R., 15). It was therein held that the use of Christian Science teachings and principles for the healing of disease did not constitute the "practice of medicine" within the statute of that State, prohibiting the practice of medicine without a license. By way of argument, the court makes the remark that, "if the practice of Christian Science is the practice of medicine, Christian Science is a school of medicine, and is entitled to recognition by the State Board of Health to the same extent as other schools or systems of medicine." This is substantially the legal position claimed by the Christian Scientists themselves.

In State v. Buswell, in the Supreme Court of Nebraska (40 Neb., 158), the indictment of a Christian Scientist for the unlawful practice of medicine was sustained, the statute in question, however, containing the special provision that "any person shall be regarded as practising medicine within the meaning of this act who shall operate on, profess to heal, or prescribe for or otherwise treat any physical or mental ailment of another." The question of policy involved is, whether to rely upon ordinary statutes—perhaps a little extended—defining manslaughter, or to follow the example of the State of Nebraska and inhibit the practice of all real or supposed healing arts outside of the schools that are scientifically classified. We have intimated that we are opposed to the latter course. In the first place, Christian Science numbers its adherents by the thousands in America, and we do not believe that any law against the practice of its professed therapeutics could be enforced. The devotees of the system quite uniformly evince the fanatical, self-sacrificing, temperament, and many of them would even welcome legal prosecution, regarding it as persecution for conscience' sake. In the second place, it is hardly conceivable that the alleged therapeutic power of Christian Scientists is an utter delusion. Certainly, a large percentage of the adherents of the sect consist of persons who either have been cured, or think they have been cured, of very serious diseases. We doubt whether the system could have gained its great numerical strength without some element of reality in this respect.

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Article

CASE OF BONE HEALING