When Faith Kills

M. Victor Westberg January/February 1998 Though adults have the right to choose any method of healing, health care for children is different. The state has a responsibility to ensure the proper care of children. In this context, then, the crucial question is On what basis can the state ensure that when religious healing practices are involved, the children in question are being cared for responsibly?

If Christian Science is taken as one standard against which the question of responsible spiritual healing practice is judged, its record should contribute to an appropriate conclusion. Spiritual treatment, as practiced by this denomination, has a documented history of effective healings that has been published in Christian Science periodicals for more than 100 years. Each one is verified, and a portion of these are healings of medically diagnosed disorders, some even deemed by conventional medicine as incurable. A partial list of diagnosed conditions healed by Christian Science treatment include cancer, pneumonia, tuberculosis, kidney disorders, broken bones, meningitis, appendicitis, rheumatic fever, glaucoma, epilepsy, and birth defects. A significant percentage of these have involved children.

In view of the literally tens of thousands of verified healings accomplished via this treatment method, it is understandable that up to four, and now five, generations of stable, well-cared-for families have relied exclusively on Christian Science for their health-care needs.

However, in the larger context of a society unused to viewing health care outside conventional medical practice, it is not surprising that some have challenged spiritual healings, characterizing them as "anecdotal" (such as Gey's article in Liberty). To those who will accept only clinical case studies, healings outside a medical orientation defy explanation. Yet there are more than 300 studies cited by Dr. Dale Matthews of Georgetown University School of Medicine that examine the effects of faith, spirituality, or religion on healing. In fact, those with a "hard science" perspective are also exploring the juncture of prayer and health. There's even a trend in medicine to examine the relationship of spirituality to healing. Medical schools and universities are conducting regular conferences and seminars on this subject. Harvard Medical School, for example, has an entire institute devoted to examining the relationship of spirituality and healing in an ongoing way. The following remarks by David Sinacore-Guinn of the Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith, and Ethics, suggest that a true understanding of spiritual healing practices necessitates embracing it as an ontological, as well as a legal, question.

"In order to afford spiritually based medicine true religious freedom, Congress and the Court may need to recognize that spiritual health (and mental health) may, as in the cases of Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists, violate standards drawn strictly from an understanding of the body as a biological machine that is to be 'fixed' by conventional medicine when it malfunctions."

Sinacore-Guinn speaks directly to the heart of this issue. Though "prayer" in general parlance has a variety of meanings, at base it is founded upon an understanding of "man" as having some meaningful relationship to spirituality, and to the God who made him. Though the definition of this relationship varies from denomination to denomination, there is a common bond in the understanding of man as the child of God, a view at odds with the concept of man as solely material.

Among those Christian denominations that do practice some form of "prayer-as-healing," difference exist. Some claim that God heals only, or mainly, through medicine and doctors; others that prayer is ineffective in meeting physical problems, but helpful in meeting mental distress (and a "calmative" in suffering). And some, like Christian Scientists, view prayer as the most effective of all healing methods. Though the various understandings, types, and applications of prayer differ, they are all based on a sincere understanding of the reality and presence of God.

Are Christian healers and medical doctors on opposite sides of the issue of child protection and care? In actuality, they share the same goal-a common commitment to the health and well-being of children. They also share a common enemy-disease and suffering. In general, those who practice Christian healing are not opposed to or fearful of doctors, nor are most forbidden to go to a doctor by their church. Christian Scientists have a long tradition of respect for all those sincere practitioners of medical science. In fact, rather than eschewing medicine, Christian Scientists share an affinity with all those who are dedicated to helping and healing humanity, even though the approaches found in the medical and Christian Science traditions are distinctly different.

Both Christian healers and medical professionals would like nothing better than a 100 percent record of success in healing children. Unfortunately at present, this is not the case for either. And both would acknowledge that when even a single child is lost, whether under medical or nonmedical care, it is a tragedy for all. But such losses should not blur the vision when spiritual healing is under consideration any more than when conventional medicine is considered. No one would advocate children being treated irresponsibly in either system of health care. And both medicine and spiritual healing practitioners endorse the state's legitimate role in protecting children. Proponents of both methods would agree that the courts can, and should, intervene when irresponsible practice of any sort puts a child at risk.

In the meantime, however, spiritual healing and prayer are bringing enormous benefits, both spiritually and physically, to people everywhere. In our so-called age of enlightenment, let's be sure not to cut off what best promotes our well-being as children of a loving God.

M. Victor Westberg is the manager of Committees on Publication for the First Church of Christ, Scientist, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.

Article Author: M. Victor Westberg