Christian Science

In Pennsylvania a charter was refused to an organization of.Christian Scientists on the ground that to recognize their doctrines was against the public policy of the state; In re First Church of Christ, Scientist, 205 Ta. 543, 55 Atl. 536, 63 L. R. A. 411, 97 Am. St Rep. 753; but in Illinois they have been incorporated; People v. Gordon,. 194 111. 560, 02 N. E. 858, 88 Am. St. Rep. 165. The consent of a patient to be treated by a Christian Scientist healer will preclude holding him liable in damages for failure to effect a cure, although that method of treatment is illegal by state law; Spead v. Tomlinson, 73 N. H. 46, 59 Atl. 376, 68 L. R. A. 432. In Maine, a Christian Scientist was held entitled to recover for his services. The defense set up that it was delusion and charlatanry being considered immaterial, as defendant had chosen the treatment and promised to pay for it; Wheeler v. Sawyer (Me.) 15 Atl. 67. While the practice of Christian Science is not a practice of medicine as usually and generally understood, yet being a treatment for mental and bodily ailments, such practice is a violation of the state laws for the protection of the public health; State v. Buswell, 40 Neb. 158, 58 N. W. 728, 24 L. R. A. 68; contra, State v. Mylod, 20 R. I. practicing medicine; State v. Marble, 72 Ohio St. 21, 73 N. E. 1003, 70 L. R. A. 835. 100 Am. St. Rep. 570, 2 Ann. Cas. 898, where an act regulating such practice is considered a valid exercise of the police power and not void as discriminating against Cbristian Science in not. maki I provision for those who wish to practice it. Under a municipal ordinance Imposing a penalty on physicians for not reporting contagious diseases, the evidence must show that a Christian Scientist who attended the person knew that he was afflicted with such disease; Kansas City v. Baird, 92 Mo. App. 204. A belief in Christian Science, ascribing to it certain miraculous powers of curing disease, is not sufficient evidence of insane delusions to avoid a will; In re Brush. 35 Misc. 689, 72 N. Y. Supp. 421. A conviction of a father for wilfully omitting, without lawful excuse, to furnish medical attendance for his minor son, was upheld; Owens v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 110. 116 Pac. 345, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 633, Ann. 1913B, 1218. See an article In 10 Va. L. Reg. 285.