15,697
edits
Changes
→Prosecuting Christian Science in the Courts
==Prosecuting Christian Science in the Courts==
Medical licensing authorities were concerned about the spread of Christian Science and began actively to prosecute them for violating licensing laws. Even though they did not behave like traditional physicians, Christian Scientists made it clear that their methods could cure human ailments. Like physicians, they also readily accepted payment for their services. Christian Scientists argued that their system of healing was as valid as any other, and defended themselves from overzealous licensing boards by alleging that any interference with them was a violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Clifford Smith, a judge and Christian Science advocate, argued that medical regulations discriminated against other healing practices “create[d] a monopoly, and in effect establish[ed] a state system of healing” that unfairly discriminated against Christian Scientists.<ref> Clifford Peabody Smith, <i>Christian Science, Its Legal Status: A Defense of Human Rights</i> (Boston, 1914), 12.</ref> State licensing boards in several states actively pursued Christian Scientists. Historian Rennie Schoelpflin combed through state courts records and identified several cases where Christian Scientists were prosecuted for practicing without a medical license. In most of the cases Schoelpflin found these practitioners were ultimately exonerated by lower level courts or appellate, but this was not universally true. Some states courts did find that Christian Scientists were practicing medicine.<ref> Schoelpflin, 149, 151, Appendix.</iref>
In Nebraska, a Christian Scientist, Ezra M. Buswell, was charged with violating the Nebraska medical practice act. Buswell was acquitted by the district court after it ruled that he was not practicing medicine. The Court of Appeals came to the opposite conclusion and found that Buswell was a physician. Buswell had studied with Mary Baker Eddy at the Metaphysical College in Boston. Buswell was convinced that Christian Science was valid system because he was cured of his ailments after his conversion. Buswell stated that he had never administered any medicine to his patients. Instead, his treatment centered on reading the scriptures and prayer. Buswll stated that when a person “request[ed] aid and c[a]me to us for and assistance we treat them as a mother treats her child that is frightened of objects it fears…we seek to dispel the fear by showing them the presence of love…Perfect love casts out fear.” Buswell admitted treating as many as a hundred patients in the previous eighteen months this way.<ref><i>State v. Buswell</i>, 40 Neb. 158, 58 N.W. 728.</ref>
Buswell stated that payment was not mandatory and he would “leave the question to them and God.”<ref><i>Buswell</i>, 731.<ref> Still, Buswell hoped his patients would compensate him for his services. He informed his patients that, “[i]f they are not willing to part with the sacrifice themselves, it is not expected that those should reap the benefit.”<ref><i>Buswell</i>, 731.</ref> The expectation of a fee or a gratuity prevented Buswell’s actions from being classified as either “an act of worship” or “the performance of a religious duty,” according to the court. The court found that the payments were exchanged for services rendered.<ref> Buswell, 732.</ref> The court also found that Buswell believed that he was similar to a physician. The court was convinced that Buswell “engaged in treating physical ailments of others for compensation.”<ref><i>Buswell</i>, 732.</iref> It should be noted that the Nebraska Supreme Court found that both Osteopaths and Christian Scientists were practicing physicians and held an expansive notion of the “practice of medicine.”
In 1898, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island disagreed with the Nebraska Supreme Court and found that Christian Science was not a medical practice. Walter E. Mylod was adjudged “probably guilty” by a district court based on the complaint of the secretary of the Rhode Island State Board of Health. Mylod was convicted after a witness testified that he sought Mylod’s help to treat malaria. Mylod informed the witness that he was a doctor and continued to pray for ten minutes during their meeting. After praying, Mylod stated “I guess you will feel better” and gave the witness a book titled A Defence [sic] of Christian Science. The witness then paid Mylod one dollar for his services and left his office. Another individual also sought treatment from Mylod and received a prayer and copy of a different book, A Historical Sketch of Metaphysical Healing. The second patient also paid Mylod one dollar for each of his visits. Mylod told his patient that he needed to look on the bright side of life because “thought governs all things.”<ref><i>State v. Mylod</i>, 20 R.I. 632, 40 A. 753, (1898), 754- 758.</ref>
In another Christian Science case, the Supreme Court of Ohio was faced with determining whether a Christian Scientist who was paid for his services by patients was practicing medicine under the Ohio Medical Practice Act. Unlike the Osteopath in Liffring, the Christian Scientist in this case was subject to the 1902 medical practice act, not the 1896 version. The 1902 law expanded the definition of the practice of medicine. The new law invalidated Liffring and brought into question an earlier lower court decision stating that under the 1896 law, Christian Scientists were not practicing medicine.<ref><i>State v. Marble</i>, 72 Ohio St., 21; 73 N.E., 1063 (1905): 25-28.</ref>
In the case, the justices admitted that they did not know anything about Christian Science. They relied on evidence presented at trial that Christian Scientists considered their practices to be “treatment.” “If the defendant prayed for the recovery” of the patient and cured the patient, then the Christian Scientist “was practicing healing or curing disease.” The medical practice was designed to regulate “the public health and the practice of healing,” and it was irrelevant how medical specialists achieved their results. In other words, the court found it was “the conclusion of disease” and “not the method of treatment” that was subject to the medical law. The court also rejected the defendant’s contention that the law discriminated against his religious beliefs.<ref><i> Marble</i>, 29-40.</ref>
These cases demonstrated the difficulty courts had in defining whether Christian Science was the practice of medicine. William Purrington, the legal counsel for the New York State Medical Association at this time, was forced into the uncomfortable position of both agreeing that Christian Science was the practice of medicine and disagreeing with the principle that praying for patient was barred by licensing laws.<ref> Schloepflin, 156-157.</ref> Unlike the Ohio Supreme Court in Marble, he believed that it was the method of treatment that was regulated and the intent to treat disease that triggered licensing laws. Purrington was opposed to prosecution of Christian Scientists under licensing statutes. Purrington’s views most likely were contrary to the beliefs of most of the physicians in the New York State Medical Association.
==Avoiding Prosecution through Legislation==
