FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100  
101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   >>   >|  
wanted to get better. Is that the way you look at it?--No, I don't. I know God is all-power and ever present. But if God is all-powerful, as you say, and as we all know, why did you have no response?--I suppose it was my lack of trust in that all-power. {139} It comes to this, that although He is all-powerful, unless the person praying for another has perfect faith the patient will not recover?--Nothing is impossible to God. The doctor was called in because it was the law. Then it was too late. It was as much the law to have called him in when the woman was alive. What is the practice with regard to illness?--It is prayer. If you had a broken leg, would you send for a doctor?--Yes, to set it. I have not sufficient understanding. Continuing, witness said she did not believe in drugs, but she did in food at present, because her understanding was not sufficient, as she was only a student. By a Juror: The reason Mrs. Dixon got worse was because of lack of understanding on witness's part. The Coroner: When she got worse, why did you not send for a doctor?--I asked her if she wanted a doctor to tell me. Yet she was getting worse owing to your lack of understanding?--I didn't look at it in that light. B. H., who attended Mrs. Dixon, said she was a trained nurse with nine years' experience. Witness had, during the past two years, become a Christian Scientist nurse. She was not a practitioner. The Coroner: Has a practitioner any special qualifications?--No, a practitioner is one who prays for another. The Coroner: Would you give a patient a mustard poultice?--No. But you would give her a hot-water bottle?--Yes. Then where do you draw the line? You don't believe in material aid?--No, I believe the other is better. Do you believe in a judicious continuation of both?--No. Did you give her beef tea?--Yes, as a nourishment. But, nurse, you ought to know what every medical man knows, that beef tea is a stimulant. Do you believe in stimulants?--Not at all. {140} Then why did you give her beef tea?--(After a pause) It was simpler to get. But it is contrary to your principles. Would you give _sal volatile_?--No. Witness explained that she called in no other help because she believed prayer was the most effectual. Why didn't you call in a doctor?--I think the patient should judge for herself. Even though her brain is clouded and she is dying?--Yes. On another point the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100  
101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
doctor
 
understanding
 
Coroner
 
practitioner
 

called

 

patient

 

witness

 

prayer

 

present

 

sufficient


Witness

 

wanted

 

powerful

 

poultice

 

mustard

 

effectual

 

bottle

 
believed
 
Christian
 

Scientist


qualifications

 

special

 
material
 

nourishment

 

clouded

 

stimulant

 
medical
 

volatile

 

judicious

 
explained

stimulants

 
continuation
 

simpler

 

contrary

 
principles
 

recover

 

Nothing

 

impossible

 

perfect

 

practice


praying

 
person
 
response
 

suppose

 

regard

 

illness

 

experience

 

attended

 

trained

 
Continuing