"Equality among Healers"

Albert E. Miller

Philadelphia Public Ledger

To the Editor.

Your editorial, "Equality among Healers," in the issue of February 13, contains much that Christian Scientists will indorse. No class of people advocate a higher standard of ethics than the Christian Scientists, and having, as a rule, had much to do with physicians in the effort to regain health before taking up with Christian Science, they see the necessity of exercising the greatest care to keep the ranks of medical practitioners free from charlatans and incompetent persons.

The medical bill under consideration, however, aims to do more than merely regulate medical practice. It aims to shut out all ways and means of bringing aid to the sick and suffering except by the ministrations of those who have graduated from medical colleges.

The question of how the sick are to be healed is a very broad one. Until materia medica can be proven to be an exact science there will continue to be well-founded opposition to any legislation which makes dependence upon doctors of medicine the only means whereby the sick can legally look for relief.

There have been repeated attempts in many state legislatures to establish laws which leave to the citizen no choice in questions pertaining to health; but only in one or two instances have legislatures been found willing to place laws of this kind upon the statute books, and the constitutionality of such legislation is open to question.

The fact that the medical profession seeks protection of this kind indicates a lack somewhere. If their efforts to heal were universally successful no such protection as they now seek would be needed. The claim is put forth that this legislation is sought for the "protection of the people." At the public hearing granted by the committee having the bill under consideration no clamoring on the part of "the people" for this "protection" was noticeable; at least no representatives of the people came forward to urge the passage of the bill. The only advocates of the bill present on that occasion were the physicians themselves. On the other hand, a very respectable and intelligent portion of our citizenship was represented by delegations of Christian Scientists from all parts of the state to protest against this intended infringement upon their rights of religious belief and practice.

Prayer to God ever has been, and ever will be, an effectual remedy, and the Christian Scientist has proven his right to rely upon prayer, and prayer alone, as his remedy for disease. He has proven it by his works.

There need be no fear that Christian Science is bringing disaster to its believers. As a rule, its numbers are largely recruited from the ranks of those who have had abundant experience with medicine, and it is that experience which prompts them to prefer Christian Science. The fact that its advocates are increasing in number is the best answer to the charge that it does not heal the sick.

The attempt to make our state say that one method of healing shall be followed to the exclusion of all others savors strongly of paternalism. If adopted, a law of this kind would be the first step toward specifying what practice shall invariably prevail and what drugs shall be administered for each and every ache and pain. The Christian Scientists are confident that the lawmakers of this Commonwealth will not be inveigled into favoring unjust discrimination of any kind, and especially of the kind contemplated in the act now under consideration.

Albert E. Miller.
In Philadelphia Public Ledger.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit