Article November 18, 1916 Issue

It is not often that an editor declares himself to be against...

Judge Clifford P. Smith—New Bedford, Mass.

The Standard

It is not often that an editor declares himself to be against medical freedom. Most people not only desire this right for themselves but are willing to concede it to their neighbors. Even the Journal of the American Medical Association seldom goes so far as to speak directly against medical freedom. Its editors usually argue against this right indirectly or in a manner that would annul it by circumvention. Therefore the recent editorial article in The Standard on this subject was extraordinary, if not unprecedented.

It is probable, however, that The Standard's opposition to medical freedom might be modified, or even ended, by a clear definition of this term. As understood by Christian Scientists, it denotes the right of every citizen to choose between the different curative methods known to men and the right to employ a practitioner who is qualified to practise the system which the citizen prefers. As so defined, medical freedom pertains directly to the preservation of life; it belongs vitally to the pursuit of happiness; and when the citizen chooses to rely on the practice of a religion to prevent or cure disease, this right is inseparable from both civil and religious liberty. When the American people assumed the power of self-government they declared such rights to be God-given and inalienable.

Christian Scientists are not the only people who rely on the practice of religion for the preservation of health. Last February the Biblical World contained a carefully written article entitled, "The New American Religion," which included the statement, made as a conservative estimate, that there are five million people in the United States who possess the absolute faith of the first century, which they are striving to put into practice in the twentieth. Nor are these religionists the only people who do not choose to employ medical doctors. In December, 1914, a well-known representative of the medical profession, Dr. William S. Sadler, said in the course of an address to the Chicago Medical Society: "No less than ten million persons in this country do not depend upon the regular medical profession in times of sickness."

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

It is not often that an editor declares himself to be against...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access