Article August 24, 1899 Issue

Christian Science Question Again

American Lawyer.

LIKE Banquo's ghost, the Christian Science question will not down. On the evening of July 13 a meeting was held at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York to consider the preparation of a prohibitive bill to be presented at the next Legislature. We should not have referred to the affair had it not been for the fact that the matter seems to have been taken up quite seriously by several individuals of more or less prominence, both in the medical and legal world. From what we hear, the meeting seems to have resulted in somewhat of a melancholy fiasco. The bill, a rough draft of which was submitted, provides, so far as we have been able to learn, that whoever advises or persuades another against employing medical or surgical aid in case of illness or physical injury shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the illness or injury results fatally shall be guilty of manslaughter, in case no medical or surgical aid has been received.

The manifest absurdity of a measure similar to the foregoing certainly seems beyond all question. Legislation can only protect the citizen up to a certain point, beyond which each man must look out for himself. The law may recognize the fact that some members of the community—infants, idiots, and sailors, for example—are not as competent as the rest of mankind adequately to safeguard their interests. It cannot, however, go further than the enforcement of a broad, general rule. An individual may habitually disregard his own interests, but unless he comes within certain classes the law will not act as his business guardian. Similarly, an act seems of doubtful expediency drawn to protect an individual from the effects of his own folly in paying attention to improper advice, medical or otherwise.

It may prove to be not without interest in this connection to look at two comparatively recent decisions, one rendered by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, in State vs. Mylod (40 Atl. Rep. 753), the other by the Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, in Evans vs. the State. In the first case the Court refused to consider the constitutionality of legislation prohibiting the acts of the defendant, basing its decision on the ground that under the law then in force he could not be convicted of a crime. It therefore took up the question whether the methods of the accused constituted a practice of medicine, and observed: "Prayer for those suffering from disease, or words of encouragement, or the teaching that disease will disappear and physical perfection be attained as a result of prayer, or that humanity will be brought into harmony with God by right thinking and a fixed determination to look on the bright side of life, does not constitute the practice of medicine in the popular sense." The opinion contains a review of many cases cited by the State in support of its contention.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Christian Science Question Again

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access