Article February 29, 1908 Issue

In a recent issue of the American Dr. Nathan 'Herman...

Alfred Farlow

Baltimore (Md.) American

In a recent issue of the American Dr. Nathan 'Herman expressed an opinion regarding the authenticity of Christian Science cures, and writes exhaustively on the subject of diagnosis as a means of ascertaining the real nature of disease, for the purpose of determining just what Christian Science has accomplished. I have had many years' experience in Christian Science practice, and have oftentimes come in contact with medical diagnosis. I know a case that was examined by ten physicians, each of whom gave a different name to the disease. Disagreements in diagnosis occur every day. Although Christian Scientists have no quarrel with the medical fraternity, we believe they are justified in affirming that until the doctors can show a greater degree of proficiency in diagnosis, little would be accomplished toward an exact test of Christian Science healings by medical examinations.

A short time ago a Christian Scientist healed a case which an eminent physician had pronounced an abscess on the liver. Having occasion to use this testimony as an evidence of the efficacy of Christian Science. the patient asked the physician for a certificate. His reply was that he remembered that the patient was sick, but could not recall the fact that she had abscess on the liver. A doctor had treated for a considerable length of time a case which he had pronounced tuberculosis of the lungs. As a last resort the patient turned to Christian Science and was healed. The physician then declared that the woman did not have consumption: that this was a case of mistaken diagnosis, for if she had had consumption she could not have been healed by mental treatment. We will cite one more case. A child under Christian Science treatment died within thirty-six hours after it was taken sick, supposedly with diphtheria. A doctor declared that if the case had been in the hands of a physician in its incipiency the child's life could have been saved. The same physician was called upon to treat a case of throat disorder. He first named various troubles in his speculations regarding the case, and at the end of three days decided that the child had diphtheria. The child died, but no complaint was made. In such a case, if the result depends upon the sort remedies administered, we think we are justified in our unwillingness to allow the result of Christian Science to be determined by medical diagnosis, especially so long as our friends of the medical fraternity manifest such poor memory and so many shortcomings in diagnosis....

We modestly declare our opinion that no class of practitioners has proved itself sufficiently successful to point the finger of contempt at the failures of others. Further more, one who has been healed by Christian Science is quite as well aware of the change that has taken place in his body as he would be after a skilful examination, and while he is anxious that his neighbor shall share the relief which Christian Science has brought to him, he learns by experience that those who misapprehend the teaching of Christian Science will also misunderstand its healings and will seek to explain them away. After all, the proof of the pudding is the eating thereof. When one who has exhausted all known processes of relief turns to Christian Science as a forlorn hope, and finds health thereby, neither physical examinations nor want of them can rob him of his convictions that, whereas he was blind, now he can see. Christian Scientists cheerfully grant to their neighbors the privilege they claim for themselves, namely, freedom to choose their religion and medicine, and to make that choice in their own good time and way.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

In a recent issue of the American Dr. Nathan 'Herman...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access