As Congress moves closer to a vote on a health-care bill, the debate continues as to whether this landmark legislation should include a provision for spiritual care and treatment. Because the stated goal of our legislators is to include all Americans within a comprehensive insurance program, the answer must be an unequivocal, “yes!”

Unfortunately, neither the House nor the Senate version of the bill includes an important amendment that had been approved unanimously by three of the five Congressional Committees involved with crafting the legislation. The amendment stated that private insurance companies participating in any government-run insurance exchange should not discriminate in approving or covering any health-care service on the basis of its religious or spiritual content if such expenditures are allowable as a deduction under section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code.

In terms of the practice of Christian Science, this would mean reimbursement – to the individual, not to the Church – of some of the costs associated with spiritual care and treatment. This includes fees for self-employed Christian Science practitioners and nurses and physical care at privately owned Christian Science nursing facilities, all of which are available to the general public, not just Church members. This code also applies to practices other than Christian Science, including some Native American religions and holistic healing centers.

This amendment was removed due, in part, to vehement and often misleading opposition voiced by a longtime critic of Christian Science as well as a coalition of atheist groups opposed to the notion of anything religious in law.

The argument against including a provision that could very well benefit all Americans – not just Christian Scientists – boils down to this: Should the government be paying for praying? A loaded question, to be sure. But one that still deserves an answer.

Put simply, the amendment does not ask the government to pay for anything. Nor does it require the government to endorse what some consider to be nothing more than a religious ritual, – having little, if anything, to do with health care. It is only an accommodation of something that, at least in my experience as a Christian Scientist, has proven to be a safe, reliable and effective means of treating myriad physical ailments.

Over the past 140 years prayer as taught in Christian Science has resulted in the complete cure of everything from everyday aches and pains to heart disease, tuberculosis, AIDS, even cancer. Thousands of these cases have been verified; many of them medically diagnosed.

While there are those who bristle at the idea of equating prayer-based treatment with medical care, I would suggest that what we should really be guarding against is the tendency to equate health care with medical care. After all, medical treatment is just one form of health care. The two are not synonymous.

As I see it, there are at least two important reasons for the current health-care bill to accommodate more than just one form of treatment. For one, even though medical care is the preferred choice for the majority of people, it’s obviously not meeting the needs of everyone all the time. Second, because other systems of care – including prayer-based treatment as taught and practiced in Christian Science – have proven to be consistently effective.

It’s essential that our health-care system honor the individual’s ability to discern and determine what’s best for him or her – to choose and, if necessary, to be reimbursed for whatever responsible form of health care they’ve found the most reliable. Not only will this benefit the individual in need but our health-care system as a whole.

Los Altos resident Eric Nelson serves as the Northern California media and legislative spokesperson for Christian Science. For more information, call 269-6234 or e-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Email (will not be published)

Name

Title

Comment
 remaining characters

Post

We reserve the right to use comments submitted on our site in whole or in part. We will not publish comments that contain advertising or website links.