Correct Diagnosis

One of the arguments frequently used by critics of Christian Science is, that lack of technical medical education renders Christian Scientists incapable of properly diagnosing cases brought to them, and therefore they should not be allowed to treat patients; but if we may judge by the absurdities, contradictions, and inconsistencies of so-called "expert testimony," given by physicians in the courts, the same argument will apply to some members of the medical profession.

The position of Christian Scientists on the subject of diagnosis is thus explained by Mrs. Eddy in our text-book: "The Christian Scientist, through understanding mental anatomy, discerns and deals with the real cause of disease. The material physician gropes among phenomena which fluctuate every instant, under influences not embraced in his diagnosis; and so he may stumble and fall in darkness" (Science and Health, p. 462). The correctness of the Christian Scientists' diagnosis is proved by the healing of the greater number of their patients.

"Expert testimony" is much used in cases involving the sanity or insanity of persons who are the subjects of judicial investigation, and in these cases the experts are about evenly divided in opinion, men of equal eminence in the medical profession drawing radically different conclusions from the same set of facts. This state of affairs has become so well known, that courts and juries regard "expert testimony" with much less favor than formerly. That it is possible for both sides to obtain numerous experts, indicates a lack of scientific basis for the opinions given under oath, or a lack of individual capacity to form a correct opinion from given data. Under these conditions, either the practice of medicine or the individual practitioner is subject to criticism.

A case recently reported in the newspapers will lessen the confidence reposed by some in the absolute finality of human judgment, when expressed by those who are never at a loss for an opinion. In fact the case in question serves to show the recklessness and absurdity of some of the opinions thus given under oath. The expert in the case referred to testified that certain persons, whom he in all probability had never seen and whom he certainly never had examined, were insane, and not the least surprising feature of the incident is that this man was permitted to give such testimony in a court of justice. The persons named were in no wise connected with the case, and if the statements had been made in conversation instead of from the witness-stand, there would be no question of their slanderous character.

We do not wish to be understood as saying that such practices are common with physicians, because we have a very high regard for the large body of conscientious men and women who are serving their fellow-men to the best of their ability, men and women who deal fairly and compassionately with all, even where they do not share their views. Such practitioners know that their license to practise medicine does not give them liberty to pass indiscriminate judgment on their fellows, nor does it place them outside the pale of moral accountability to society. M.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit