IX. Evaluation of Christian Science Claims of Spiritual Healing
An Evaluation of Christian Science Claims for the Effectiveness of Spiritual Healing in the Treatment of Childhood Illness

The Christian Science Church has claimed that its methods of healing solely by prayer is as effective or superior to medicine in healing all childhood illnesses.

In an effort to prove this assertion, the Church has presented what it claims are two statistical studies of its "healing record."

1. An Analysis of a Christian Science Study of the Healings of 640 Childhood Illnesses

The first study of Christian Science healings of children is presented in a recent church publication, Freedom and Responsibility. The study is titled, "An Empirical Analysis of Medical Evidence in Christian Science Testimonies of Healing, 1969-1988." The study is based on the Church's methods of documenting healings by "testimony."

According to the study, "All testimonies are submitted on the initiative of the respective testifiers…" The study admits, "These testimonies are manifestly religious rather than medical documents…" Moreover, "The medical specificity of the testimonies also varies greatly…a large number of testifiers refer to healings of diseases or conditions that are not medically named." Further, "Some have questioned the reliability of details reported in the testimonies, since most, like the example just given, are by persons who are not medically trained…Even in diagnosed cases, testifiers are often reporting in their own words what physicians have said to them. The possibility that in some cases individuals have misinterpreted, misremembered or otherwise inaccurately reported the remark of doctors cannot be ruled out any more than the possibility in some cases of medical misdiagnosis." Finally, "Cases listed as medically diagnosed, for example, include only those where a diagnosis was specifically mentioned or reasonably indicated by the testimony."

How are we to have confidence that a diagnosis that is "reasonably indicated" actually corresponds to the true diagnosis; who made these diagnostic judgments based on second or third hand information - a doctor, a church official, or a statistician? While we cannot say that some healings from medically diagnosed illnesses did not take place, it is clear, based on the study's methodology that the study's results have no scientific reliability.

Furthermore, the study provides no access to the medical documentation it cites, so it is impossible to independently verify the study's claims. It would be completely irresponsible to base critical public policy decisions regarding the effectiveness of spiritual healing on children on an unverifiable "study."

In the study's section, "Healings of Children," the church summarizes the results of its compilation of 640 healings (which occurred between 1969-1988) which it claims were medically diagnosed. Of these 640 healings or conditions, 88 are claimed to have been pronounced, by a physician, to have been life-threatening. Of the remaining non-life-threatening illnesses, the study provides no breakdown as to which illnesses were self-limiting (illnesses from which a person will normally recover, with or without treatment), such as colds, headaches, small cuts, etc. Christian Science cannot claim that its methods of prayer are effective in healing all childhood illnesses based on recoveries from non-serious, self-limiting illnesses.

The study does list approximately 50 claimed healings from illnesses that would be classified as serious but which were not pronounced as life-threatening. These conditions included asthma, convulsions, pleurisy, bone disease, hernia, hearing loss, and physical deformities. Again, though some of these conditions may be resolved without medical treatment, without extremely detailed data it is impossible to know to what extent Christian Science methods contributed to recovery.

It is also impossible to know, because of the lack of medical documentation, how many of the children were actually healed: an illness such as asthma may recur periodically - a subsiding of symptoms may look like a healing but may instead be a temporary remission. Without better medical evidence, a portion of these healings may not have been healings at all. The value of these testimonial claims is further eroded by the flawed methodology in not obtaining diagnostic verification (as discussed above).

Next, the study summarizes the healing of 88 "life-threatening" illnesses:

...at least two of spinal meningitis…five of pneumonia or double pneumonia, one of food poisoning, one of diphtheria, one of wet lung, one of brain fever and chorea, two of heart disorders…one of stomach obstruction…Two healings of ruptured appendix involved teenagers.

Although these illnesses can be life-threatening, some are not necessarily fatal if left untreated. As in the illnesses classified as serious (above), it is impossible to know if Christian Science prayer was actually responsible for the healings or whether the children would have recovered anyway, without prayer treatment. Particularly, given the small number of cases in each diagnostic category (five cases of pneumonia, three of spinal meningitis, etc.) it is quite possible that the recoveries are not to be attributed to Christian Science but to the natural resistance of the children involved.

Of course, any claim by the study that it demonstrates the effectiveness of Christian Science healing is entirely nullified by the fact that the study lists only claimed successes in each diagnostic category. No comparative listing of failures is given to establish a demonstrated record of the number of successes compared with the number of failures in particular diagnostic categories.

Taking pneumonia, for example: the Church claims five healings over a 20-year period. The Church does not also indicate how many deaths from the same illness occurred in the same time period. (If there were five deaths in the same time period, this would not represent a very good record compared with medicine, or even with no treatment at all.) Prior to the introduction of penicillin and other antibiotics, a significant number of children eventually recovered from pneumonia, albeit after much suffering; and a significant number of children died. With the advent of antibiotics, the percentage of children dying of pneumonia decreased dramatically, and today children do not normally die of pneumonia.

Based on the study, Christian Science cannot claim that its treatment is effective in curing pneumonia since, 1) the five recoveries might have occurred without prayer, and 2) because there is no comparative recording of failure. Nor, based on this "study" can Christian Science claim that its method of treating pneumonia compares favorably to medical treatment of the illness. Medicine keeps clear statistics of its recovery rate and failure rate for pneumonia; Christian Science can make no comparison because it has no statistical record to compare with that of medicine. It is ludicrous to assert, based on five recoveries (and no record of failures), that any child with pneumonia should be deprived of the benefits, proven over the last 50 years, of antibiotics and modern medical treatment.

The preceding is not to say that Christian Science methods may not be helpful in aiding the healing process for certain types of childhood illness. Medical science has recently begun the study of the mind/body effect in promoting physical healing. Belief in recovery, peace of mind, and the placebo effect can be powerful aids to healing. But the ability of the mind to promote physical recovery has clear and definite limitation; in the case of childhood illnesses, the very uncertain and scientifically undocumented effects of prayer cannot be responsibly substituted for the proven effectiveness of antibiotics and other forms of medical treatment. There is no reason that prayer and medicine cannot be combined if a parent so wishes, but Christian Science claims that the use of medicine can prevent prayer from working.

There is a last category of childhood illness which is largely excluded from the Christian Science "study." These are the childhood illnesses that are usually fatal without proper medical care. The study, apparently, does not contain one healing of this type of illness. Unfortunately, there is a tragic public record of Christian Science's failure to save children from a number of normally fatal illnesses.

Between 1986 and 1989, two Christian Science children in the United States under the age of 15 died of juvenile onset diabetes - a childhood illness that can normally be controlled with insulin but which is almost always fatal without proper medical treatment. These two children received no medical care; the only treatment provided was Christian Science spiritual treatment.

The Christian Science Church, in a second, separate "study" (see below) estimated that annually there are approximately 7,000 Christian Science children (between the ages of 4 days and 15 years) in the U.S. who are exclusively under Christian Science care for all illnesses and who receive no medical treatment.

Hence, for the 4 years between 1986 and 1989 the annual death rate of Christian Science children in the U.S .for diabetes was .5 per 7,000 or 7 deaths per 100,000. The annual death rate for all children in the U.S. under the age of 15 of diabetes in 1986 and 1987 as reported by the U.S. government is .1 death per 100,000. Therefore, based only on publicly reported deaths of Christian Science children of diabetes in the four years 1986-1989, Christian Science children on an annual basis (who received no medical care and only spiritual treatment) were 70 times more likely to die than all other children in the United States.

In California, in 1984, three Christian Science children who were receiving only Christian Science care died of h-flue bacterial meningitis, an illness which is 90 percent curable with the proper use of antibiotics. (The three claimed cures of "spinal meningitis" listed in the above study may well have been viral meningitis which is not an invariably fatal illness.)

Some statistical comparison between the rate of death of Christian Science children in California in 1984 of h-flu meningitis and the rate of death of all other children in California in 1984 of the same illness may be attempted. In that state in 1984, there were 23 deaths of children under age 15 of h-flu meningitis. Further, in 1984 there were 5,697,504 children under age 15, giving a calculated death rate of all children 0-14 years in California of h-flu meningitis of .4 per 100,000.

No figure is available for the number of Christian Science children in California receiving only Christian Science care. The only figure available is the estimated figure (see above) of 7,000 children nationwide annually receiving only Christian Science care. The comparison will then be the death rate in 1984 of Christian Science children nationwide receiving only Christian Science care of h-flu meningitis and the death rate of all children in California of the same illness in 1984. (This comparison gives an enormous statistical advantage to the Church's method of treatment since the Christian Science deaths in California are not being compared to the number of Christian Science children just in California - the proper comparison - but the number of all Christian Science children under exclusive Christian Science treatment in the U.S.)

Based on the three deaths in California in 1984 and the 7,000 Christian Science children nationwide, the death rate of Christian Science children in 1984 was 3:7,000 or 43 per 100,000. This compares to the death rate of .4 per 100,000 for all children in California in 1984 of h-flu meningitis. Hence in 1984, the risk of all Christian Science children in the U.S. (based only on California reported deaths) was 107 times greater than the risk of only California children of death from h-flu meningitis.

More reliable statistics on the failure side: in 1985, at a Christian Science college in the Midwest, as a result of a campus-wide outbreak of measles, there was a documented death rate from respiratory complications ten times higher than expected had the students received medical care, rather than treatment solely by prayer.

In conclusion, simply put, there is no evidence presented in this "study" that even remotely suggests that society could responsibly allow Christian Science care to be substituted for medical care in the case of serious childhood illness.

2. An Analysis of a Christian Science "Study" That Claims That Christian Science Healing Methods Are Twice As Effective As Medicine In Treating Childhood Illness

The second "study" presented by the Church claims to demonstrate that Christian Science healing is twice as effective as medicine in healing all childhood illnesses. Rita Swan, in her 1990 monograph entitled, "The Law's Response When Religious Belief Against Medical Care Impact on Children," partially analyzes this study:

Despite its deposition statement that it keeps no record on its dead children, the church claimed in 1989 to have developed statistics indicating that Christian Science is twice as effective as medical care in healing all diseases of children. The church claims that only 23 children per 100,000 die under Christian Science treatment, while 53 per 100,000 children die under medical treatment. The only deaths of Christian Science children that the church acknowledges during its five-year study period are six that prosecutors filed charges on.

The Church claims (as a basis for its statistics) that approximately 7,000 Christian Science children in the U.S. receive only Christian Science treatment per year. However, the Church freely admits that this figure of 7,000 children is purely guesswork, based on an arbitrary estimate that there are four children exclusively under Christian Science care in each of the 1,800 churches and societies.

This figure of 7,000 children is further undermined by the fact that a large percentage of Christian Science children probably receive some medical care, thereby making any estimate of Christian Science children solely under Christian Science treatment virtually impossible. Perhaps as many as one-half of Christian Science marriages are mixed; Church doctrine stipulates that if the non-Christian Science partner wishes to obtain medical care for his/her child, then such treatment should be permitted. Furthermore, even when both spouses are Christian Scientists, the parents may turn to medical care when prayer is having no effect on a serious illness. So the Church's arbitrary estimate that only 7,000 Christian Science children exclusively receive Christian Science care is even less reliable given these complicating factors. From the Swan monograph:

One also questions whether 53 children per 100,000 are dying "under" medical treatment or from lack of it. The church states that these children are dying "in a society that claims some of the best and most modern medical technology on earth." Nevertheless, many children in the United States are deprived of optimal medical care and their mothers receive no prenatal care because of poverty and public policy.

The Christian Science "study" appears to be entirely spurious, or essentially just made-up. It demonstrates no comparison between Christian Science healing and medical care.

3. Christian Science Treatment Methods Lack Necessary Legal Accountability and Scientific Credibility

The following excerpt from Swan's monograph outlines critical considerations as to why Christian Science care should not be accorded equal status with medicine and why religious exemption laws should be repealed:

The Christian Science Church has testified in Congress that it has a "system of health care…without legal restriction." Perhaps here is the heart of the matter. A system of health care should have legal restriction and if the state is going to endorse it as appropriate care for sick children, the state should license it.

The Christian Science Church tells its health care providers not to report contagious diseases to the state. It dissuades them from reporting cases of sick children deprived of medical care to Protective Services agencies. It also lacks internal accountability and record keeping. Church officials have sworn under oath that the church has no "supervisory control" over its practitioners' judgment about the condition of sick children," that it has no training, workshops, or meetings for practitioners that "include any discussion on how to evaluate the seriousness of a child's condition," that it has never "named the death of a child as a grounds for revoking a practitioner's listing" and that it keeps no record on children who die while receiving Christian Science prayer treatment.

Should the state be endorsing such a slipshod system as appropriate health care for a sick child? Religious exemption laws appear to do just that although the faith healers have no accountability to the state of their patient and no scientific data on the effectiveness of their methods.

Religious healing does not deserve to be a state-recognized system of health care as the exemption laws appear to make it. Medicine is a state-licensed system with well-defined responsibilities to the state and its patients. The effectiveness of medical treatment is established by rigorous, repeated testing. A doctor is obligated to use the most effective medical treatment available against a disease. If a doctor deviates from that standard, there are civil and criminal remedies available.

The state cannot regulate religious healing. It cannot set standards for the training of faith healers or certify their credentials to take life and death responsibility for helpless children. It should, therefore, not be endorsing religious healings as appropriate health care for seriously ill children.

Of course, no one is trying to outlaw prayer for the sick. The courts are simply ruling that prayer cannot be a legal substitute for necessary medical care for children. What the Christian Science Church asks for is the right to deprive the child of medical help for all diseases whatsoever and instead place the child in the care of a church practitioner who has only two weeks of training, cannot make a diagnosis, does not know when she/he is failing to heal, and will not refer cases to other health care providers.

To merit state recognition as health care for children, the Christian Science Church would have to submit scientific data on its ability to heal diseases that ordinarily require medical intervention.

As has been previously demonstrated, the Christian Science Church has presented no scientifically credible evidence that its methods can heal serious childhood illness.

Norman Fost, Chairperson of the Bioethics Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated on ABD-Television's Nightline program that:

...this exemption that the Christian Science Church is asking for is…higher than any physician would ask for or would claim, that is, to practice any kind of healing - no matter what the scientific basis, no matter what the outcome - and to be absolutely immune from state intervention. They're not asking for equality with medicine. They're asking for a total immunity that physicians don't have.

By means of religious exemption laws, Christian Science and other faith-healing groups want all of the privileges of a state-sanctioned health care system with none of the critical and necessary responsibilities. Christian Science officials often attempt to defend their healing method following the death of a child with the following argument:

When we lose a child, we get prosecuted. When they lose one under medical treatment, there's no question of prosecution.

Nathan Talbot, Church Spokesman

The fallacy here, of course, is that while many children do die under medical care, many such deaths occur because medicine cannot yet treat a particular illness successfully. Deaths may also occur, from time to time, because of complications, error, or negligence. Such deaths, however, do not invalidate the known and proven effectiveness of established medical treatment. Unlike medicine, Christian Science cannot claim a scientifically documented and established standard of treatment effectiveness.

Parents may be prosecuted for reckless conduct for failing to provide medical care which has been scientifically established as effective treatment for a particular childhood illness. On the other hand, in the event of medical error or negligence, a physician or other licensed health care provider may be sued for malpractice or prosecuted for criminal negligence.

Should the state punish parents who love their children and are acting out of their sincere religious beliefs? To establish a duty under law, that state has to spell out a penalty for failure to obey. That is the only way to establish a duty. At the least, the state should have the option of prosecution available so that parents have a legal duty to provide medical care.

Until Christian Science can present medically verifiable data that it can successfully treat serious childhood illnesses, Christian Science parents should not be exempted from the legal responsibility of all other Massachusetts parents to provide their seriously ill children with necessary medical care.

Christian Science treatment is reimbursable by several health insurance plans. Such recognition, however, does not imply that these insurance companies support the notion that Christian Science cures children of serious illness. Rather we should recognize that from the insurance companies' perspective, it is simply a matter of good business to offer such insurance coverage.

Return to top