The Scripture declares: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." This teaching not only advocates the wisdom of thinking for one's self and arriving at one's own decisions, but also implies the right to do this, the right of individual thought and opinion. The above passage refers specifically to a religious observance, while another verse in the context, "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs," seems to refer particularly to dietetics, a medical requirement. The right to one's individual religious opinions, or to his medical beliefs, carries with it the right to practice these religious or medical methods in one's own case, or when called upon to do so by others who are fully persuaded in their own minds as to what they desire.
It is quite true that although one has a God-given right to choose his own religion and medicine, he has no right to foist his beliefs and practices upon others, although the courts have held that one may practice upon others who voluntarily place themselves under his care, provided he practices what he advertises and provided his practice is not positively harmful. Any system of compulsory religion or medicine is contrary to human rights and individual privileges, which are vouchsafed by pure religion and by the Constitution of the United States, and other enlightened countries. It is contrary to Scriptural provision, contrary to divine Principle, and it must eventually be set aside. Critics have said that dependence upon Christian Science amounts to neglect, and jeopardizes the safety of the patient by delaying "proper medical treatment." But this argument is unreasonable, because it is based upon the assumption that materia medica is an invariably safe remedial system, and Christian Science in comparison an unsafe means of caring for the sick; yet no physician will guarantee good and satisfactory results from his practice in any given case. It is thereby admitted that notwithstanding four thousand years of experimentation, material remedies for the sick have not yet passed the experimental stage.
A few years ago a compilation of statistics in two states, a northern and a southern state, established the fact that about ninety per cent of those who had turned to Christian Science had already exhausted their hope in material remedies, had failed to obtain permanent benefits therefrom, and that about seventy-five per cent of these so-called incurables had been healed or substantially benefited by Christian Science. Judging from this, it is seen that the chance of recovery under medical treatment is only problematical, even when considered from the standpoint of the experts.
