Article August 10, 1907 Issue

Our critic affirms that "functional, hysterical, or nervous...

Alfred Farlow

Sun

Our critic affirms that "functional, hysterical, or nervous disorders" are the only "diseases which Scientists can relieve." We believe that we may safely leave this question to the army of intelligent, reliable persons who have been the bebeficiaries of this Science. In describing the ailments with which they were afflicted previous to their experience with Christian Science they repeat only what they have been told by reputable medical diagnosticians, and if physicians have erred in naming their afflictions the burden of responsibility must be left with the physicians. Whether the annoying troubles of which Christian Scientists have been relieved were real or imaginary, the certainty of relief and their gratitude therefor are none the less.

Some time ago a lady who had walked on crutches for a number of years, because a broken leg had never knitted, was perfectly well after four weeks of Christian Science treatment. In commenting upon this fact a physician said: "She could have walked long ago if she had made the attempt." In view of such an argument (?) it would seem useless to contend about the authenticity of Christian Science healings. We think the better plan is to let the twentieth-century public decide for itself whether its neighbors, who have been found responsible in their affirmations concerning all other subjects, are telling the truth about their experiences with Christian Science. ... Until medical practice becomes a sure cure, or an approximation thereto, there can be no justification of the assertion that any given case might have been saved by the use of medicine early or late. When we take into consideration that some of the most eminent specialists of this country and foreign countries place almost no confidence in medical treatment for pneumonia, and that in New York City alone between eight and nine thousand deaths occur every year under that form of treatment, we are inclined to believe that the campaign of public inquests recently inaugurated in New York City is not prompted so much by love for humanity, or by an honest conviction that giving the medical fraternity the sole guardianship of the public health is an essential to the safety of the community, as for the purpose of menacing the practice of Christian Science.

Regarding the treatment of children, parents are the natural guardians of their children, and Christian Science parents are not an exception to this rule. It may seem natural that those who have only a cursory knowledge of Christian Science should regard dependence upon this Science and an exclusion of medicine as neglect rather than help, but to the Christian Scientist who has had experience, first with medicine and last with Christian Science, it does not so appear. If one's neighbor objects to Christian Science treatment on the ground that it is an inefficient remedy, it behooves him to make a careful investigation, and such investigation should include an examination not only of the failures but of the benefits of Christian Science treatment; and not only the successes but the failures of medical practice, in order to insure a just comparison and a wise judgment. ... We think that the general public will agree that no school of practitioners has proved itself sufficiently successful to point the finger of indignation at the failure of others, and that it is inconsistent for the representative of a school which, according to published report, loses one case of pneumonia every hour to find fault with another school which so far as we know has lost only two cases in a year.

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

Send a comment to the editors
NEXT IN THIS ISSUE
Article
The fact that we see to-day, as the critic himself affirms...
August 10, 1907
Contents

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit