Legal Aspects

In the Introduction, I mentioned a subject that would not occupy much of my attention in this book, because it has been handled well and at length by other writers. That subject is Christian Science. However, at this point I will share with you a thought or two about this religious philosophy that developed during my research. It would seem that pseudo-medical procedures that bring damage to innocent people would be of interest to both the medical profession and law enforcement authorities. My contacts with the latter group, as mentioned previously, have been mostly futile. As might be expected, some victims of faith-healers have sought remedies through lower courts and some through the Supreme Court. This happened as recently as 1986, when the widow of a Christian Scientist in Piano, Illinois, brought a case against that church. Her husband, suffering from uremic poisoning resulting from prostatitis, was “treated” by a Christian Science practitioner. When the patient got worse and appeared near death, the woman sought to dismiss the practitioner and obtain orthodox medical assistance for her husband. The practitioner forbade it, warning her that if she even spoke to a doctor, the man would die. Despite the practitioner’s earnest prayers, the man did die, miserably and in pain. The widow filed suit to recover damages for the wrongful death of her husband, whose condition usually responds well to surgery and/or medication. In effect, this woman was contending that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not protect religious faith-healers and their churches from liability in such matters. The Supreme Court refused her suit, arguing that “the issues raised would require an inquiry into whether the tenets of the Christian Science Church are valid, and such an inquiry would violate the First Amendment.” Now, admittedly, I am far from an expert in legal matters. But I recall that some few years back the Rastafarian religion in the United States argued that the religious use of marijuana by its members, a practice long accepted by them and an essential part of their religious beliefs, exempted them from laws against use of the drug. (Personally, I think use of such substances is juvenile and just plain dumb, but I am arguing here a matter of law, not personal preference or prejudice.) The court refused the exemption, pointing out that it is against the law to grow, sell, or use marijuana. This decision certainly questioned whether the tenets of the Rastafarian religion were valid, did it not? And, because the Rastafarians were refused the right to follow this part of their religion by the Supreme Court, it appears that both the inquiry and the refusal violated some First Amendment rights. I recall a case of far less serious consequence where religious beliefs were pointedly ignored in favor of the public preference. The Doukhobors (“Christians of the Universal Brotherhood”) are a Russian religious sect that took root in Canada back at the turn of the century. They got along quite well with their new country-men at first because of their very law-abiding nature and their strict behavior codes. In fact, the prime minister commended the sect, saying that its members had proved exemplary new citizens. Then, in the 1930s, rumors were heard that the Doukhobors were wont to go about naked on occasion and believed that the taking of more than one spouse was quite all right. Again, the law was invoked, and these relatively harmless practices, said to be part of the religious tenets of these Christians, were not respected. Yet it seems that a process that appears to amount to murder by negligence, supported by the eccentric notions of a Christian sect (admittedly very wealthy and influential), can be carried out by a “practitioner” with no medical training whatsoever. This, and a direct breach of another law—that which prohibits the practice of medicine without proper licenses—can and will be tolerated by the courts. I ask, which is more anti-social, a man with two wives smoking a substance that may be less harmful than tobacco—which certainly has been proved to cause illness and death—or a man causing another man to die in agony for lack of proved, established medical procedures? The occult movement of the ’60s spawned a number of kinky religions, brought back some fringe cults, and imported a few foreign ideas, notably from the Far East. A little girl in Long Island, New York, whose parents were members of the Gheez Nation, a sect from Africa that believes in faith-healing, almost died when she was not permitted treatment by orthodox medical physicians. The court intervened, and she survived. But the Church of Christ, Scientist, a sect that attracts some of the biggest of the big-money names, remains immune from such interference.