The following interesting article from the pen of C. S. Carr, M.D., first appeared in the December, 1899, number of Medical Talk and was republished in a recent issue of the Weekly Herald of Dayton, O. Coming as it does from the pen of a physician, it is not only suggestive but interesting and instructive to all people who read it with care. The doctor's explanation of the Christian Science method of healing is not correct, but this is wholly excusable in a physician not claiming to be a christian Scientist or a student thereof.

Following is the article:—

Let us suppose we have a sick person before us; no matter what the disease is, one malady will serve our purpose about as well as another. Now, let us suppose there are four doctors by the patient's bedside. One is an allopathic doctor, another is an eclectic doctor, another is a homœopathic doctor, and the other one is a Christian Scientist. Each one believes he can cure the patient; each one has a suspicion that the other three cannot. Each one believes he is right and the other three are wrong.

Now, let us listen as they talk. The allopathic doctor says: "This patient needs some medicine." To this the eclectic doctor will agree, and so will the homœopath. The Christian Scientist will not agree to this. He will reply: "If this man's mind were right he would recover without any medicine."

Now the other three doctors will admit that some sick people do recover without medicine; that many sick people recover without medicine. They will also agree that if the mind is right a great deal is accomplished in the cure of the disease, but they will insist that some risk is taken to allow the patients to go without any medicine. How much risk they will not exactly agree. Perhaps the allopath will say that he is running one chance in ten to die if he does not take medicine. The eclectic might say one chance in twenty. The homœopath might be inclined to be more liberal still, and perhaps he might say one chance in fifty; but, at any rate, they will all agree that the patient stands far greater chances to get well without medicine, than he does to die. This is equivalent to saying that if the Christian Scientist should treat him, get his mind easy, inspire his faith, stimulate his ambition, dissipate his fears, that he stands a great deal better chance of getting well than he does of dying. They will all agree to this; but now then, as to those who want to give medicine; let us hear them talk.

The allopath will say: "I am going to give such and such a medicine in such and such doses." What will the other three say? The eclectic will say: "No; that is wrong. You had better, far better, give him nothing." The homœopath will say: "Every dose you give of such medicine is a crime and only injures your patient." The Christian Scientist, of course, will object to any and all medicine. So we have it, three to one, not to give the medicine which the allopath would like to give.

Next, our eclectic doctor says: "I am about to give such and such a medicine in such and such doses. What do the rest of you think of that?" The allopath will promptly reply: "Such medicine is all bosh. Your theory of curing disease is entirely wrong; you will get no results except to do the patient harm." The homœopath will no less promptly reply: "Your poisons can only weaken the patient and destroy his resistance to disease. They should not be given under any circumstances." The Christian Scientist will reply: "Please give no medicine at all; leave him with Nature's powers to restore."

Now the homœopath speaks up and says: "I am going to give such and such a medicine in such and such doses." The allopath will reply: "Nonsense, your medicine amounts to nothing whatever. What's the use of giving moonshine and sweetened wind? You might just as well give him cold water as to give him such stuff." The eclectic will not be so harsh in his use of words toward what the homœopath proposes, but he will practically agree with the allopath that the homœopath's medicine is simply no medicine at all. What will the Christian Scientist say? He will say: "I object to your treatment simply because you pretend to be giving medicine. This pretence of yours attracts the patient's mind in the wrong direction for cure. I had much rather you would treat the patient than the other two; yet you can only do harm, since you are conveying a falsehood to the patient's mind."

Now this is exactly what would occur if these four kinds of doctors could be brought to the bedside of any one patient, provided they are true to the teachings of their respective schools.

Now if you were the sick one, which doctor would you rather have treat you after hearing this conversation? They all agree that if the Christian Scientist should treat the case that the chances are greatly in favor of the patient's spontaneous recovery. They stand three to one that if the allopath treats the case nothing but injury will be done, and thus the man's chances for spontaneous recovery will be lessened. They stand three to one that if the eclectic treats the case that he will do harm and thus lessen the chances of recovery. They stand three to one that if the homœopath treats the case he will do nothing except to bamboozle the patient into the belief that he is taking medicine, when in reality he is taking nothing. If you were the patient, which doctor would you prefer to treat you?

Now let us suppose that the allopathic physician takes the case and treats it. In due time the patient recovers. If this physician were asked for his candid explanation of the recovery of the patient, he would say something like this: "I am not quite sure that my medicine cured the patient. I only know that I did the best I could for him. It may be that the powers of Nature really performed the cure. I can never know about this. I am sure that my medicines were given according to my best knowledge of the action of drugs, and I have treated the patient exactly as I would wish to be treated if I were sick. Perhaps he would have recovered without any medicine." Now this is what the doctor who treated the case would say, if he were disposed to be frank and confidential about the matter.

What would the other three doctors say if the patient recovered? They would all agree that the allopathic doctor's medicine did nothing but harm; that the patient recovered in spite of the treatment, not by aid of it. Not only did the powers of Nature restore the patient, but they did so with the useless obstruction of having the doctor's medicines to overcome also. Of course, good breeding and culture would prevent doctors from actually saying these words that we are putting into their mouths, but this is what they would think. This is what they would be obliged to say, if they said anything about it.

Now, let us suppose the eclectic physician should treat the case and the patient recovered. What would the other three doctors say of his recovery? They would say in substance exactly what they said of the allopathic doctor's treatment: That the patient recovered in spite of the disease and medicines combined; that both the drugs and the malady were opposed to the patient's recovery, but the powers of Nature were sufficient to overcome both.

But if the homœopathic doctor had treated the case, and the patient recovered, what would the other three doctors have said (provided, of course, they were willing to speak their mind in the matter)? They would all agree that the patient had recovered without any assistance except his faith in the doctor, and the supposition that he was taking patent remedies. They would attribute the cure to good nursing and faith in the doctor. At least they would admit that they had done no harm. If he had committed any sin at all, it was the sin of omission and not of commission. That he had neglected to do what he might have done they will all agree, for neither of them would admit that his medicines contained any potency whatever (supposing, of course, that he is really using homœopathic remedies).

Finally, let us suppose that the Christian Scientist had treated the case, and the patient had recovered. What would the other three physicians have said? They would have said that it was a case of spontaneous recovery. They would admit, of course, that the good nursing was all right, and putting the patient's mind to rest concerning the outcome of his disease was good so far as it went. They would agree that he had omitted to do anything of any real value. The only harm he had done was the harm of not doing what they would have done. None of them are quite sure that the patient would have recovered had either of themselves treated him, and the only thing they will quite agree about is that the Christian Scientist has not done as they would have done. The fact that the patient has recovered would not have a feather's weight with either of them; that the case had not been properly treated, no matter how often such recoveries would occur. Their hostility to the Christian Scientist would remain unchanged.

The allopathic doctor would have preferred that the harmful medicine of the eclectic doctor had been given, rather than to trust the case to the Christian Scientist. The eclectic had much rather the harmful medicine of the allopath should have been given, than to have the case trusted to the Christian Scientist. Even the homœopath would have preferred that the case had been treated by a regular graduate physician, even though he did not agree with a single item of their treatment.

Now let us begin all over again, and suppose that the allopath undertook the case, and in spite of the treatment the patient had died, what would the other three physicians then say? They would say that since the medicines given the patient only did harm, it could not be otherwise than that the physician assisted in the fatal termination. Surely a harmful drug is difficult enough for a well person to bear. At a time when the powers of Nature are taxed to their utmost to combat disease, it is almost a crime to compel the patient to squander any of his powers in combating the mischievous effects of toxic drugs; in short, the physician helped to kill the patient.

If the eclectic doctor had treated the patient, and the patient had died, the other three physicians, if candid, would be obliged to say exactly the same thing.

If the homœopathic physician had treated the case, and it had ended fatally, the other three physicians would admit that perhaps no harm had been done, but that Nature, unassisted, was unable to cope with the disease. This is the very worst thing that they could have said of the homœopathic physicians. Of course, well-behaved and polite physicians would not say these things, but this is precisely what they would think.

Once more let us suppose that the Christian Scientist had treated the case and the patient had died. What would the other three say? Would they say the Christian Scientist had done any harm, any positive harm? No, they would say simply that he had neglected to do anything; that he had claimed that sickness was a delusion. He had wasted valuable time in trying to persuade the patient he was not sick, or made a useless attempt to rally the powers of nature by operating upon the mind of the patient. The homoeopath and the eclectic would have no such serious charge to bring against the Christian Scientist that they would have had against the allopath, for of the allopath they both said he did harm; neither would the homoeopath and the allopath have to say of the Christian Scientist the same terrible things which they said of the eclectic. All they would have to say is that he neglected the patient, not that he did any real harm.

But after these three physicians had decided that the Christian Scientist had simply neglected to give one or the other of the treatments which they would have given, would they be inclined to stop here? No; they would want the Christian Scientist arrested and tried for murder, or at least manslaughter. Why? Because he had done harm? No; because he had done nothing, they claimed. Why did not the other three physicians have the allopathic physician arrested when they believed that he not only did nothing to help the patient, but actually did something to harm the patient? If the reader knows any reason why, the writer of this article will be greatly enlightened if he will kindly give it.

The allopathic physician, or the homoeopathic, or the eclectic, can lose patient after patient with no fear of being charged with manslaughter. Why? Because these gentlemen are supposed to be educated; had pursued a course of study which makes it entirely respectable for them to lose patients. Now, this would all be very well and proper if these three men agreed about anything, but their education, instead of confirming each other's knowledge, and thus rendering each other moral support in cases that prove fatal, each man's education challenges every item of treatment which the other two would adopt. If what the homoeopathic physician says is true, then the Christian Scientist has simply omitted to help his patient get well, while the other two physicians have actually assisted in killing him. Why is it, then, that the homoeopathic physician is willing to have the Christian Scientist arrested for manslaughter, and unwilling to have these other two arrested, also? If the reader knows any reason why, we sincerely hope he will enlighten us.

Why is it that the eclectic physician consents to the arrest of the Christian Scientist, who has simply not done what he would have done, when the other two have not done so either, and in addition to this have actually done something which he believes to be harmful ? Why is it that the allopathic physician looks on with approval and applauds the arrest of the Christian Scientist for manslaughter, when if either of the other two physicians had treated the case, they would not only have failed utterly to have done a single thing that he would have done, but would have added to that failure the poisonous drugs of the eclectic, or else the foolish mummery of the homoeopath? If the reader knows any reason why, will he not take pity on the writer of this article and inform him? We confess that our mind is in a muddle on this subject. Won't somebody kindly enlighten us?

In referring to the treatment of either of these four doctors in such terms as "harmful treatment," "rubbish," "bosh," etc., no disrespect is intended by the writer. These words were used merely to indicate the supposed sentiments of these different doctors towards each other, and were not intended to convey the feelings of the writer at all.

These remarks have been confined to four kinds of physicians in order to illustrate the idea. All the time we are saying these things, the thought keeps coming up that there are a great many others schools of physicians who stand ready to dispute everything that the four doctors above referred to have said. The osteopath has entirely another theory and cure. The hydropath, the electropath, the faith doctor, and so on, each one of these schools comes forward with great confidence that it is right in every particular, and that all the other schools are wrong in every important particular; that is to say, in the treatment of the case we have been considering they would refuse to do anything that the other doctors would recommend. The only thing in which they would all agree is, that the Christian Scientist ought to be arrested and punished for manslaughter.

Where so many men of divergent views on other questions come into exact agreement on some one question like this, there is a strong suspicion that they must be right about the matter; but how this can be right; by what train of reasoning it can be justified; by what code of ethics it can be sustained; the writer of this article has not the slightest suspicion. Will not some humane person dispel his ignorance?

Copyright, 1902, by Mary Baker G. Eddy.