Poor but typical defenses of Christian Science

There are two predictable responses you'll get from Christian Scientists when they are challenged about the ineffectiveness, and danger, of their particular brand of spiritual healing:

1. People have bad medical outcomes too
2. They know without a doubt that healing happens because they’ve experienced it themselves.

I was Christian Scientist who had no medical insurance for over 30 years, but never needed it anyway because I never got seriously sick. Then I started to get old and age-related things started to happen. This was coincidental with a complete loss of faith in any deity and any religion. I now have frequent medical interventions and take a few medications every day.
A critic might conclude that it was Christian Science that kept me healthy enough for those 30 years and it was only when I lost my faith that I started to get sick. I don’t think this is true. I have three other siblings. Two of them have several health issues, some of them serious enough to require major surgeries. The eldest of the four, my sister and I, have been relatively healthy all our lives. She worked in the health care industry during the time that I was a practicing Christian Scientist. It seems obvious that we either got the good genes - or else something changed after our births caused our mother to give birth to sickly children. Nutrition? Smoking? Diabetes? We don't know and it would be hard to find out. My point is that my sister didn't have the "benefits" of Christian Science and she has been pretty much as healthy as I.
The fact is that if public health had been left up to the teachings of Christian Science and those who seriously practice it, we would be a third or fourth world nation today. For instance, bad water, a major source of disease, would never have been purified because microbes are considered by Christian Scientists to be illusions. (Besides, right thinking of this sort would make everyone invulnerable to any suggestion of infection.) If Christian Scientists were in charge no one would have done the research to identify the microbial source of disease and nothing would have been done to purify water. Prayer alone and a highly spiritual life would have been sufficient, in that belief system. And yet today even Christian Scientists benefit from the fruits of those who worked on the problem.
Yes, medical practice isn't perfect, and yes there have been serious mistakes made in its history. And yet, on the whole, today people are generally healthier and live longer because they get regular medical attention. Progress still needs to be made, especially in America where Corporate Scientists have taken charge of the food and pharmaceutical industries. But this does not warrant the kind of condemnation implicit in the retorts of Christian Scientists that medicine has its failures too. As I have said many times before, if Christian Science prayer were truly as effective as its adherents claim, it would have overtaken conventional medicine by now. There would be huge industries dispensing that kind of treatment because it would be meeting a vast need. And yet, Christian Science practitioners are an infinitesimal portion of the health care industry, catering mostly to church members who have been taught from infancy to fear doctors and abhor medication and who are all too eager to testify to the supremacy of Christian Science treatment even when it means bending the facts or exaggeration. Christian Science is not the better mousetrap that the world will generously pay for.
Despite the lack of evidence, Christian Scientists desperately fall back on their own inner convictions as a final defense against the claim that its health care system is impotent and therefore dangerous. But every philosophy student knows that basing an argument on unverified personal convictions is bad logic and provides unreliable guidance for others.
While it's true that there seems to be a "god hole" in human consciousness, this is no proof that a god must therefore exist. Not all dreams come true. In fact, most don't. Delusions may be comforting, but they are still delusions. You can't always get what you want, but for most people, most of the time, they get what they need from the conventional medical community.
A recent article in the Washington Post provides an overview of these issues.

The few, the healthy, the lucky

A “truce” with medicine

A mild stir has ensued from a report that my former church is trying to make some efforts to ward off criticism that its form of spirituality is in conflict with general standards of health care. The NYT story didn’t go the way the PR department at the church had expected. It conveys the image of an organization in the final throes of its own death. The few remaining adherents are getting deeply into old age.

To be a Christian Scientist is to attribute health and healing to right thinking about reality. It includes the belief that there is a universal benign power that creates and inhabits a world of perfection and happiness. It also attributes all imperfection and unhappiness to wrong thinking, or the belief that we live in some other universe. Healing involves aligning “thinking” with the the perfect world. So, ultimately the responsibility for health is on each individual.

One of the most serious consequences of this belief system is the implication that sick people are to blame for their problems. I have seen people with every kind of ailment endure pain, disfigurement and various degrees of impairment because they believed that these problems would go away as soon as their minds clicked into alignment with the belief that everyone is perfectly OK.

As detailed here recently, a fine and spunky member of the family succumbed because: 1) she refused to have a fibroid removed, and 2) because, at her insistence, no one would give her nourishment via some alternative means.

The church can posture as much as it wants about how it is liberalizing its policies, but the fact of the matter is that most of its dwindling membership is seriously senior and their brain pathways are deeply grooved in the old policies. Most of them will judge the church as straying from the true path and will continue to hobble through the rest of their lives hoping they will pass away quietly in the night with little or no discomfort. And a few of them may welcome the excuse to finally get a medical diagnosis or a prescription for a pain killer or antibiotic or whatever they need. Parents have been scared for the past ten or so years because of legal measures that provide severe punishments for failure to provide medical care to children - so they aren't a significant part of the intended audience.

The whole belief system is defined by a book, Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy, which she has deemed perfect and complete and is not subject to revision or updating in light of new facts that may emerge to challenge some of her assumptions. One of the most egregious, for me, is her damningly faint praise for Darwin’s discoveries. She basically says that as far as wrong explanations of the natural world are concerned he is less wrong than most. But still wrong. The world isn’t material, she claims, is not governed by universal physical laws, but is a dream state that is the exact opposite of the true spiritual state, which is totally good and eternal. What I eventually came to realize is that the “spiritual” world is the dream state, while the material one is the one that deserves and needs our attention.

People who take up the Christian Science way of life are idealists who sincerely want a better world, and are appalled that there is so much evil and ugliness in their daily lives. The ones who defend it the most, however, are those who have strong constitutions, good genes and a ton of good luck. Their commitment to advancing the cause of Christian Science allows them to attribute their good fortune to the ideas and techniques taught in Eddy’s book.

However, the aging process moves inexorably along and even the Directors of the church must be feeling it - a recent photo of the five of them is scary. If it weren’t for the attempt to get the public to pay for their religion’s wacky prayer treatments they wouldn’t have bothered to posture as “liberals.” Incidentally, most of the Directors took over the church in 2004 coup because they represented staunch conservatives who thought the religion was being diluted by appeal to an increasingly skeptical public and as well as an increasingly confused and discouraged membership. The effort to get this brand of “right thinking” health care covered by government-paid health insurance is laughable and its rejection is a scrap of evidence that there are still some legislators who can think straight - at least for a few moments at a time.

Christian Science Church Seeks Truce With Modern Medicine

Oops! Condolences to those who were affected by the Pre-
Truce standard. I'll have more to say on this later, but for now here's the article as it ran in the NYT:

Christian Science Church Seeks Truce With Modern Medicine
By PAUL VITELLO
Published: March 23, 2010


Since the founding of their church 131 years ago, Christian Scientists have been taught to avoid doctors at all cost. It is a conviction rooted so deeply in church dogma that dozens of members have endured criminal prosecution rather than surrender an ailing person to what they see as the quackery of medical science.
Enlarge This Image
Ángel Franco/The New York Times

But faced with dwindling membership and blows to their church’s reputation caused by its intransigence concerning medical treatment, even for children with grave illnesses, Christian Science leaders have recently found a new tolerance for medical care. For more than a year, leaders say, they have been encouraging members to see a physician if they feel it is necessary.

Perhaps more significantly, they have begun a public campaign to redefine their methods as a form of care that the broader public should consider as a supplement rather than a substitute for conventional treatment, like biofeedback, chiropractic or homeopathic care.

In recent years, the church has been lobbying to convince lawmakers that its approach is an alternative way of tending to the sick, and that its costs should be covered by insurance companies and included in health care legislation.

Lobbyists succeeded in getting provisions that encourage private insurance coverage of Christian Science care into both the 2006 legislation overhauling health care in Massachusetts and the United States Senate version of the health care overhaul; both measures were removed in negotiations. Church officials say they intend to keep trying, at both the state and federal level.

“In the last year, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been called to pray at a patient’s bedside in a hospital,” said Philip Davis, 59, the church’s national spokesman, who has been tending to the sick for three decades as a Christian Science practitioner. The church trains and registers its practitioners to help patients with their prayers.

His credentials as a practitioner consist of a friendly Midwestern manner and a certainty that sickness is the manifestation of a conflict between “correct” and “incorrect” thinking. He does not believe in germs or the existence of illness, which they consider a dreamlike state.

The faith’s guiding textbook forbids mixing medical care with Christian Science healing, which is a form of transcendental prayer intended to realign a patient’s soul with God.

But rigid thinking has not served the church well in the last half century, Mr. Davis said. Though officials do not provide membership statistics, scholars estimate that the church’s numbers have dropped to under 100,000 from a peak of about twice that at the turn of the 20th century. The faith has about 1,100 churches in the United States and 600 abroad.

In New York City, falling membership forced the Christian Science church on Park Avenue to lease its building part time to a catering service in 2006. Another Manhattan church remains open; a third closed in 2005.

“We are a church on a slow curve of diminishment, in good part because of what people see as our stridency,” he said in an interview at the church’s New York offices on East 42nd Street near Grand Central Terminal. “So we asked ourselves, ‘Are we only going to pray for you if we find you pure enough and spiritual enough?’ ”

Mary Baker Eddy, who founded the Church of Christ, Scientist, in 1879 in Boston, wrote in the church’s textbook, “Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures,” that anyone inviting a doctor to his sickbed “invites defeat.”

Mr. Davis said that by toning down “the judgmental part of our nature” and opening the doors to people seeking Christian Science prayer as a sort of “value-added health care,” the church hopes to keep alive a form of religious practice that its adherents still see as the true path to salvation.

Religious scholars say the church’s past reticence, even secrecy, in the face of what its leaders have considered persecution, makes it difficult to know how widely the new message is being embraced among members, or how long it will last.

Publicly, the church has always said that its members were free to choose medical care. But some former Christian Scientists say those who consult doctors risk ostracism.

The truth may lie somewhere in between, said Rennie B. Schoepflin, a professor of religious history at California State University in Los Angeles and author of “Christian Science on Trial: Religious Healing in America.”

“There has never been a monolithic ‘Church of Christian Science,’ ” he said. “There has always been a tension between those in the church who were more zealous and those who were less so.”

The source of deepest tension, said Gary Dorrien, the Reinhold Niebuhr professor of social ethics at Union Theological Seminary in Manhattan, “is the fact that Christian Scientists are best known right now for denying medical care,” especially to children who subsequently die.

Over its history, more than 50 church members or practitioners have been charged in connection with such deaths. Prosecutions have come in waves, most recently during the 1980s and ’90s, when the church and its practitioners were linked to the deaths of a half-dozen children whose lives, the authorities said, might have been saved if they had not been denied medical care.

“The church of today would not let that happen,” said Mr. Davis, who was quoted last June in The Christian Science Journal, an official church publication, as telling parents to “do what you have to do for your kids’ health,” including seeking a doctor’s help.

Church officials recently permitted two practitioners and two patients to talk about Christian Science treatments with a reporter from The New York Times — a rare public discussion that they said they hoped would demonstrate the commitment to transparency, and would help people understand their beliefs.

They would not discuss the care of children or let a reporter witness a treatment session. And neither practitioner was willing to discuss the new flexibility described by Mr. Davis.

But in conversations liberally supplemented with citations from “Science and Health,” they explained their basic beliefs: In Christian Science, they said, sickness and suffering are misunderstandings — or as Mrs. Eddy wrote, “a mistaken belief” in the “power of ill health.”

One of the practitioners, John Q. Adams of Manhattan, said a patient who came to him with a lump under his arm was experiencing “a manifestation of fear, not a lump.”

The other practitioner, Rebecca Odegaard of Boston, said that if a patient had a bleeding gash in his arm, “I would try to calm this person, and help him overcome the fear.” Such a patient is suffering anxiety over the illusion that something has injured his “true self,” when the gash has only happened to his “material self,” Ms. Odegaard said.

In both cases, said Mr. Adams, healing requires engaging in “an argument with yourself to restore the truth.”

While both practitioners said they would continue to consult with patients who see a doctor, Ms. Odegaard said, “it would not be the same kind of prayer.”

“In that case, I would be available to that person,” she said. “I would never abandon someone.”

About 1,400 practitioners are registered with the church, roughly half as many as were listed in church publications in 1985, Professor Schoepflin said.

The treatment does not cost much. Patients pay $25 to $50 per consultation, whether for a five-minute phone conversation, an e-mail exchange or face-to-face.

The low cost is among the concerns expressed by some critics, worried that poor people might be attracted to the $25 treatments. But the main opposition to Christian Science and other prayer treatments has come from the medical establishment, most forcefully the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“Given the complete lack of scientific evidence of the efficacy of prayer in treating any illness or disorder in children,” academy officials wrote Senate leaders in October, “mandating coverage for these services runs counter to the principles of evidence-based medicine.”

Jane Warmack, the director of the church’s legislative division, said nothing in the measures it had proposed would hurt children. Insurance companies, she said, would simply have the option to cover prayer treatments.

Given their low cost, she added, “the insurance companies would have little to lose — it’s kind of a no-brainer for them.”

A version of this article appeared in print on March 24, 2010, on page A20 of the New York edition.

Family-assisted suicide

Dr. Kevorkian was pilloried and branded "Dr. Death" because he was willing to help terminally ill people who had come to a decision to end their lives voluntarily. "Physician-assisted suicide" became synonymous with the macabre, the unprofessional, the criminal.

And yet, when religious beliefs enable people to do the same thing by withholding essential medical or nutritional aid, we chalk it up to religious "freedom" and "patient rights."

I'm brought to these considerations because a dear woman in our family circle was allowed to starve to death because she had instructed her family not to intervene when a physical condition made it impossible for her to take food. I don't know what the physical condition was, but from all appearances she had a very large growth in her abdomen. It might have been a fibroid or some other kind of tumor that had grown so large it could have compressed her digestive system to the point where she could not take food normally. We will never know because she was a Christian Scientist and was sequestered in a Christian Science "care" facility where no medical diagnosis is allowed, much less medical treatment.

So I am presented with the stunning picture of a starving woman insisting that her children in attendance not allow her to take nutritional sustenance. After about two weeks of starvation, the woman died. No surprise there. Yes, she was elderly and frail and who knows if something else was eating up her innards, but to die from starvation when food in some ingestible form is available seems like a macabre tragedy. But what makes it outrageous is that her children took turns watching her die that way. As far as I know, none of them even suggested that a medical diagnosis be given, simply to see if some natural means might be used to keep her alive.

I was a deeply committed Christian Scientist for over 35 years, an advanced student who had been elevated to the position of "teacher," so that others might learn how to "heal" through prayer alone. I eventually (after far, far too long) realized the lunacy of this belief system and severed all ties both official and psychological with Christian Science. But my deep knowledge of the intricacies of that system reveal several "outs" with which these children could have probably prolonged their mother's life. Specifically, there are passages in the "sacred literature" that allow for consultation with medical experts on "the anatomy of the case." Meaning, that they could have at least known the physical situation that was causing their mother distress. Perhaps in that "anatomy" there could have been a workaround that would have allowed the poor woman to receive essential nutrition. And continue living.

However the four children of this dear woman had been raised from birth in this belief system, which probably explains why they found it at least tolerable to sit mutely by and watch their mother starve to death. I've found that "lifers" like this are firmly imprisoned in their ways and despite all rational explanations to the contrary just cannot let go of a reverence for a system that believes there is a "spiritual" power available to the faithful that can reverse natural processes of life and death. There isn't. Plain and simple. There isn't. And those of us who did not get programmed at an early age to believe the lunacy find it a little easier to let go. But brain pathways so deeply imbedded are very, very difficult to reroute toward the reasonable.

There will be a memorial service for her at a Christian Science church in her area, and I have been asked to not attend if I cannot celebrate her life instead of being swayed by the tragedy of her death. Her death is not the tragedy. It is the manner of her death that is so odious. That her children, her church members and friends are asking reasonable people to come to "celebrate her life," is almost too preposterous to contemplate. Perhaps I can be removed from the mawkish "celebration" by helping to park cars, babysitting or something.

My dear son, whose mother-in-law was the victim of this Family-Assisted Suicide, knows better. But he is a more gentle and tolerant man than I will ever be. I know that he would not want his family to let him die from neglect. And neither would I! Yes, the medical establishment is not perfect. Insurance companies, political pressure groups and the huge industries that profit from the physical frailties of humans make caring for each other a difficult choice. But I would hope that reason, sweet reason, might prevail should he -or I- be the victim of some malady that gave my family the power to facilitate my life or death.