Article December 14, 1918 Issue

A doctor's letter in a recent issue, commenting upon an...

Albert F. Gilmore—New York, N. Y.

The Truth Seeker

A doctor's letter in a recent issue, commenting upon an article in The Christian Science Monitor, which protested against compulsory physical examination of school children, contains several misstatements as well as considerable evidence of bad logic. That Christian Scientists "lost no opportunity to vilify the medical profession" would be rather difficult to substantiate. The fact is that many a Christian Scientist feels and freely expresses a deep sense of gratitude to some conscientious and devoted medical practitioner who has striven earnestly and with all his understanding to alleviate and heal a serious malady. Mrs. Eddy has set the Christian example of honoring and respecting conscientious service in the medical profession as in the Christian ministry. Even when set upon and persecuted, like a true disciple she maintained the calm demeanor and that spirit of forgiveness which exemplified the works and words of Christ Jesus. The students of her teaching are enjoined to follow her example, even when tempted to make bitter reply. Perhaps no better illustration of her expectancy could be cited than in Section 26 of Article VIII of the Manual of The Mother Church: "A member of this Church shall not publish, nor cause to be published, an article that is uncharitable or impertinent towards religion, medicine, the courts, or the laws of our land." As loyal Christian Scientists gladly obey the mandates of the Church Manual, this should effectually refute the unwarranted assertion.

The host of parents who honestly object to physical examination of their children will fail to appreciate the doctor's characterization of the court decisions relating to the inviolability of the person as "worthy of the funny page of a Sunday paper." To them the question is anything but ludicrous, as they are more inclined to accept the sound logic of the statements of principle in the platform of the California Public School Protective League: "A free child in a free school. It is the school that is public, not the child. The function of the public school is to educate not to medicate." It appears that a great many individuals, among them numerous physicians, lose sight of this fundamental truth and seek the public schools as a fertile field for experimentation.

But what leads many parents to strenuous objection to compulsory medication and vaccination is the fact that the doctors themselves are at such variance regarding its efficacy in warding off disease, and the serious consequences entailed. There is excellent medical authority for regarding vaccination not only as failing to accomplish its purpose, but as an actual menace in the case of young children. It may be said without fear of refutation that no Christian Science parent claims the right to send an infected child into the schoolroom; and it is notably true that students of this religion are scrupulously careful to report cases of suspected contagion, for they are taught first of all to obey the law. That they require their own method of treatment, however, is quite to be expected; for their faith in spiritual means of healing is well founded and their faith has been proved by their works.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

A doctor's letter in a recent issue, commenting upon an...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access