PERSPECTIVES / LETTERS : Christian Science Healing Should Be Looked at Without Bias
In the rare cases where a child has died while under Christian Science treatment, the media has sometimes presented these cases in terms of the religious rights of the parents versus the rights of the child. Such was the case in the Nov. 27 article, “Effort Seeks to Force Child Medical Care Regardless of Beliefs.”
This assessment is severely limiting and hides from public view the deeper issues.
Christian Scientists turn to spiritual healing not because of dogma but because their method of treatment has proven to be the most effective in their lives, often for many generations.
The assumption that there is no such thing as consistent spiritual healing based upon an understood principle is unfounded and often an unconscious bias in reporting. The practice of Christian Science healing has a consistent record of success spanning more than a century. This record is not limited to a few “psychosomatic” ailments. A recent 10-year analysis of the testimonies appearing in our magazines includes the healing of children with medically diagnosed conditions of spinal meningitis, double pneumonia, fibroelastosis, mitral valve lesion, appendicitis, stomach tumor, double hernia, hypogammaglobulinemia and broken bones.
Because of this healing record, Christian Science court cases should raise a number of important issues for public consideration. Is spiritual treatment a responsible choice for a parent to make? Is conventional medical treatment so absolutely safe and effective that it should be the only treatment sanctioned in our society? Has there been sufficiently balanced and objective examination of spiritual treatment today by those who would so easily dismiss it?
Some of the provisions in state law accommodating the practice of spiritual healing have been called into question. In general, these laws provide that children will not be considered “abused” or “neglected” for the sole reason that spiritual treatment through prayer alone is used.
These provisions were not accepted by legislators unquestioned. In most instances, specific concerns had to be addressed and language found so that statutes accommodating a religious practice would not be abused. We have made sure that our provisions would never stand in the way of state intervention in a case of physical or sexual abuse.
In recent years the federal Department of Health and Human Services, in a striking reversal of policy, has tried to force the repeal of these provisions by withholding grant money from states who do not comply. California at first refused, and then sued the DHHS. The federal district court district court in California ruled in favor of the state and found DHHS “arbitrary and capricious.”
The California Consortium for the Prevention of Child Abuse, which supported the suit, stated in an amicus brief: “Does the government really want parents reported because they pray when their children are sick?”
One of the strengths of our pluralistic society is the protection afforded to minorities when there is no overriding threat to the public. In an age where minority ethnic groups and civil rights receive so much attention, let’s hope that minority religions are not forgotten or treated with less importance.
ROBERT C. GILBERT
Christian Science Committee on
Publication for Southern California
The Religion Page welcomes expressions of all views. Letters are subject to condensation. They must include signature, valid mailing address and telephone. Unpublished letters cannot be acknowledged. Send letters to: Religion Editor, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, Calif. 90053. Or fax to (213) 237-4712, c/o the Religion editor.
