Some time ago—or to be exact, in your issue of Jan. 28...

Evening Genius

Some time ago—or to be exact, in your issue of Jan. 28—appeared a letter signed by a local physician, setting forth his views in support of the then pending medical bill in our Legislature. It would not be very difficult for a Christian Scientist, or in fact any englightened citizen, to agree with much that our medical friend said in his letter, but the bill in question having since been withdrawn and another substituted in which no attempt is made to interfere with Christian Scientists, the higher class of physicians throughout the State are no doubt glad to see the question settled in this way.

Irrespective of what future sessions of the Legislature may do to safeguard properly Christian Science practice, it must be quite evident to all that the least practical way in which to procure these safeguards is to insist upon Christian Scientists qualifying as practitioners of medicine. A recent attempt to settle the question in this way in one of our Western States brought forth such a flood of protest that the members of the Legislature were glad to drop the bill out of sight.

As an eminent member, of the New York bar recently said, in discussing this question: "The Christian Scientist who professes a religion under, the Constitution, and who heals only by admonition, counsel, and an adjuration to good conduct, exercises a right which is inherent in him as a citizen and not as a Christian Scientist, and to restrain him is to confuse the liberty of the citizens, under the organic law that such an act must be unconstitutional." This seems to be a very practical view of the question, and the problem may be safely left to work out its own solution.

Enjoy 1 free Sentinel article or audio program each month, including content from 1898 to today.

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit