First, in brief, if Stephen Barrett M.D. is correct, Sen. Hatch has been involved legislatively on behalf of Christian Science before. If the reader is interested, please see the section “Undeserved Political Privilege” found on the following link to the page, “The Origin and Current Status of Christian Science.”

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cs2.html

I think that’s interesting; however, I believe that Christian Science is a red herring in this current instance. It is true that CS practitioners and CS nurse practitioners may benefit financially should this legislation pass as stands, but it’s being dragged through the public mud sufficiently to make me suspicious.

With regard to the practice of certain spiritual healing principles, I would ask the medical professional to consider this: What do you think of the activity of one person telling another person in physical pain that the pain is unreal? Is that not, in other circumstances, considered a form of psychological abuse popularly known as “gas lighting?”

Think of the child in physical pain being told such a thing. “Your pain is not real.” Moreover, not only is the child being told that his or her pain is not real, but it is being said by someone with a calm countenance, and with complete power over the child. How is that not gas lighting in one of its most extreme forms?

Thus, I am not thinking exclusively about children who happen to die as a result of medical neglect, but of the psychological health of every child raised in that kind of environment. At least, with forms of religion involving big wooden masks and bone rattles, the child’s pain is acknowledged. I can’t endorse such practices, but — if nothing else — the child is validated in some fashion and led to believe that something is being done.

I have to walk away from this now. To conclude, Kevin’s blog has to do with the measure of the proposed legislation pertaining to spiritual healing. That is the focus, and must be considered, but I think there is more to weigh than the proposed legislation.

The health care I use is being explicitly written outof the reform bills by religious people. I too, will be forced to buy health insurance which won’t cover the majority of my costs. So yeah, tragic on the unfairness of the world and all, better luck in the next one, right? It’s completely inane that these religious types get to deny my health needs, women’s reproductive choice needs, and then turn around and get their witch doctoring covered. unbelievable.

You correctly point out that this overtly stupid idea is a logical outcome of mandating insurance—which is just yet another reason why mandating health insurance is an overtly stupid idea–at least for people who value freedom and autonomy and choice.

If we must roll down the road to facism, a better choice for Christian Scientists than to be allowed to have their own place in the goosestepping legions would be to allowed to opt out.

We see here the problem with a coercive “universal” anything in such a pluralistic country as America. It will force both Christian Scientists and the real scientists to pay for that to which they are fundamentally opposed. The nations where socialism works are far more homogenous than this one.

I choose health care, not Christian Science. .

The problem is govt should not be in control of BOTH regulations/standards and payments. If football players were both umpires and players, what kind of sport would it be?

We need complete separation from medical standards and regulation from the payment authorization process.

I suspect when one reads the health bills, you will find all kinds of “goodies” buried by special interest groups. Don’t be surprised and don’t complain bcs if you ask for more govt involvement, you are implicitly asking for more special interest group lobbying.

It would seem fundamentally unfair for someone to be required to pay for insurance that does not cover the type of healthcare he or she utilizes. In a policy climate where some form of mandated universal coverage appears likely, it would only seem fair that anyone required to pay into a system would have coverage for the type of health care that they have found works best for them (without depriving anyone else of their choices). If the individual mandate to buy insurance does not provide for those who rely on qualifying spiritual care, they may receive no benefit for their premiums.

I appreciate this opportunity to provide a different perspective on this issue. Anyone interested in learning more about Christian Science healing may wish to check out the website http://www.ChristianScience.com.