In sympathy with this feeling the best medical opinion is already alienated, and it is apparent that the movement must get along without the very cooperation upon which its originators laid such emphasis; yet it is doubtful if they will recognize this, for they seem disposed to show the same lack of discrimination in the selection of their medical authorities that is manifested by the opponents of vivisection.
It ill becomes a medical man to undertake to say what the effect of this movement may be on the church itself. It is entering a field that has always been occupied by medical men in an empirical way; and with the advancing knowledge of psychology and psychotherapy, they have demonstrated their ability and willingness successfully to cultivate it, wholly independent of church and religion. It is certainly not desirable that this independence should be too complete; but neither is it at all desirable, for the reasons above given, that the medical and scientific part of the work should be incidental and secondary to the religious.
The point which Dr. Worcester seems to me to miss is this: That these disorders, though not accompanied by any structural lesion, are, nevertheless, deviations from the normal brain function, and, as such, are to be studied and treated by those who have a thorough knowledge of the normal anatomy and physiology, and the pathological anatomy and physiology of the brain; and that the assistance of religion in this work, great and invaluable as that often is, should be strictly subordinate, just as it is subordinate, though very helpful and often necessary, in the conduct of the tuberculosis clinic, in his own church.
It is difficult to see where the church has any material advantage in the competition, and as the movement spreads into the hands of those with few qualifications and with greater independence of sound medical counsel, it seems not unreasonable to predict its ultimate failure and general discredit.
However, the Emmanuel movement has done good, just as the popular interest in hypnotism and christian science has done good. They emphasize and make clear the value of mental therapeutics, and spur the doctor and psychologist to renewed study of its nature, limitations and practical application. It will also serve, perhaps, to recall the practising physician from too cold a materialism; and to prevent a dehumanized scientist from taking the place of the doctor of the old school.
It is undoubtedly true that there has been a strong tendency to give undue attention and attribute undue importance to the interesting pathological problem presented in each case, and too little attention to its humanitarian aspect. We must not let the scientist push to one side the samaritan. Such is the lesson to be learned—more real human sympathy and help from the doctor, but not a “medicalized clergy.”
