Every profession of standing, in order to fulfill its purpose satisfactorily, requires a code of ethics. Architecture, accounting, medicine, engineering, law, as well as other serviceable vocations, maintain their standards through recognized rules of right conduct promulgated by their members. It is likewise natural to assume that Christian Science with its distinctive curative method of spiritual healing possesses a code of ethics which should be recognized clearly and also diligently observed. Without this safeguard the effectiveness of its healing mission, based on spiritual law, is impaired.
Ethics may be defined as the science of moral duty and conduct. The ancient profession of the law presents a clear example of a code of ethics. The Mosaic law known as the Ten Commandments, in addition to setting forth principles underlying our present criminal law, also embodied the rules of conduct fundamental from the standpoint of ethical law.
In the wide field of deportment of a Christian Science practitioner there are many phases which might be considered. It may be helpful to refer to a few of them. There is the proviso in the law of the Church that a practitioner shall hold in sacred confidence all that a patient tells him of a private nature, as well as all similar information which may come to him from any source by reason of that relationship (Church Manual by Mary Baker Eddy, Art. VIII, Sect. 22). A patient sometimes reposes some of his most sacred experiences and innermost thoughts in the safekeeping of the practitioner; these should by no means be submitted to the light of unsympathetic curiosity. What is tenderly deposited should be zealously guarded. Under this salutary provision a considerate practitioner would refrain from publicizing the name of his patient; nor would he without permission offer as a testimony facts relating to the healing of one of his patients. Aside from the dictates of modesty, there is the added reason that such information comes to him through the professional relationship of practitioner and patient. It is clear, therefore, that this would be a breach of confidence which the patient bestows upon the practitioner and would tend to forfeit that high measure of protection which the patient has a right to expect.
