ON MEL.

OCT 26

LIBRARY

The Medical Brief

A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF PRACTICAL MEDICINE.

Vol. XXXIX.

St. Louis, Mo., January, 1911.

EDITORIALS.

No. 1.

MARY BAKER EDDY.

DE as grimly

E MORTUIS NIL NISI BONUM is a capital maxim, embodying an excellent

clared, "Even in the face of death two and two make four"; and the natural sentiment that gathers around the deathbed of the founder of Christian Science does not really condone her sordid life, or change a single line in the mischief that her pernicious doctrines have wrought. In a rather fulsome editorial upon Mrs. Eddy's death the St. Louis Star affectingly remarks:

"Two nights ago a frail little old gentlewoman died who had built an empire, but not of blood or misery. She had shed no blood, destroyed no homes, shackled no nation, but what she had done was to take away a little human misery and substitute a happier, better attitude toward life."

Very touching, to be sure, and greatly to the credit of the chivalrous feelings of the editor of the Star towards the "frail little old gentlewoman" in question. But, unlike the sturdy old Russian philosopher, he has allowed the shadow of death to blind his eyes to the harsh facts. It is true that Mrs. Eddy, in her remarkable career, did not, as did Napoleon Bonaparte, with whom the Star dramatically contrasts her, lay waste the land with sword and fire. But the stern, unpleasant truth remains, and cannot be mollified even by the pathetic dignity of her death, that her mischievous teachings and her despotic mandates were responsible for the untimely death of many helpless children and credulous adultsand that a large proportion of the immense fortune which she leaves represents the revenue derived from the promulgation of this heartless propaganda.

A harsh indictment to bring against a "frail little old gentlewoman" now lying in her tomb? Perhaps but "even in the face of death, two and two make four."

What about the positive side of her alleged mission? Did she, indeed, "take away a little from human misery and substitute a happier, better attitude toward life"? If to have one's sympathies blunted and one's feelings hardened, both for one's own and for others' sorrow and suffering, is to be delivered from misery, then the Christian Scientist is so delivered, just as Dickens' haunted man was freed from unhappiness by the loss of his memory. If a stoicism that is almost pagan in its ultra spiritualism be happiness, then the Christian Scientist has it, of the same quality and degree as the serenity of Omar Khayyam. We are not aware that the "happier, better attitude toward life" attributed to her influence has ever extended beyond the sphere of the Christian Church, Scientist. Its teaching and example do not seem to have ever produced a parable of the good Samaritan or

of the prodigal son. It is concerned, in short, solely with the happiness of the individual himself, and is not only an anomaly in, but a drag upon, an age of social redemption and regeneration, both physical and spiritual.

That there may be some elements of good in the Christian Science propaganda -some grains of wheat among the chaff-we will not deny. But thus far we are bound to express the opinion that the mischief which has been wrought has greatly outweighed the good; and honesty compels us, even in the face of death, to assert that Mrs. Eddy herself has been the most powerful factor in perpetuating and emphasizing the cheap dupery of the system, and in hindering the development of whatever in it might be genuine and helpful. For this reason, while we naturally regret the demise of the "frail little old gentlewoman," albeit she was full of years and ripe for gathering to her fathers, we cannot help rejoicing that a million or so of misguided people have been delivered, by Mrs. Eddy's death, from the dominant spirit of fanaticism which during her lifetime held them enthralled. Whatever may be the future of the church she founded, we cannot but feel that, freed from the fetish of her personal magnetism, reason will again bcome throned in the minds of her followers, and the absurdities and extravagances of Christian Science, at least, will not long survive its founder.

WE

THE USE OF THE RED CROSS SYMBOL.

E are of the opinion that the American Red Cross Society is overreaching itself in its anxiety to restrict the use of the red cross symbol. It is, of course, in bad taste that the insignium should be used for purposes of commercial advertising; although we do not believe that even this should have been made a subject of legislation, any more than we approve of legislative prohibition of a similar use of the national flag. Both are matters of sentiment, and might well 'be left to the regulation of public opinion, the Red Cross Society, in this case, using its influence in every legitimate, persuasive way, to discourage such desecration of the symbol.

But to extend even a sentimental objection, and by persuasive means, to the use of the red cross by those organizations and agencies which are engaged in the relief of, or ministry to, suffering humanity-by hospitals, ambulances, and the like-is, in our humble opinion, an exceedingly foolish attitude for the Red Cross Society to take. As well might the Church undertake to monopolize the symbol of the cross itself. The essential significance of the red cross insignium is that it symbolizes the communism of human sickness and suffering, and stands for their common claim upon the consideration of mankind. It was adopted by the Geneva Convention, not as a label for an organization, nor even to indicate the specific purposes of the convention, but to serve as the badge and guidon of physical ministry to physical suffering, just as the cross itself (of which it is a modification) is the emblem of spiritual ministry, so that, wherever the red cross raised its compelling ensign, there the cause of the sick and their helpers should have the right of way, that human suffering and its ministry might, among all peoples, under all circumstances, amid all conditions, have a common representation, to command recognition and respect.

In this spirit, and with this signification, the world received the red cross symbol, and gave it currency. Its portent and influence have outstripped all conventions and societies, which now derive their significance from it, not it from them. It has become as universal as the sign of the cross. It is as futile as it