Good Christianity: Medicine

While this isn’t an air-tight argument, it still needs to be made. If Christianity really does change lives, we should expect genuine Christians to reflect this change. Now even though this isn’t an “Empirical” argument (define: Empirical),we remember that Empirical Evidence isn’t all that’s needed in an argument.

Christianity in Modern Times

Even though Christianity may not be the “Foundation” of modern medicine, it certainly has had a big hand in the field…

Sir Joseph Lister
-Lister, called the “Father of Modern Surgery,” found out that the majority of mortality rates in Hospitals were not those of the problems themselves, but of later infections. Patients who could survive the utter agony of surgery would often die later of infection. Lister began with basic techniques such as wearing clean clothes and washing his hands before surgery. Later on, he developed a spray that kept off microbes which we now call “antiseptic”. Oh yeah, he was a very deeply committed Christian.

Sir James Y. Simpson
-Simpson, who lived in the mid 1800’s, pioneered the fields of Gynecology and Anesthesiology. One of his greatest discoveries was the medical use of Chloroform, which put people to sleep. When asked what his greatest discovery had been, he said, “..that I am a sinner and Jesus Christ is my Savior.”

Dr. Annie McCall
-McCall was also a doctor of the late 1800s who began the field of pre & post-maternity care. She is also known for her establishment of a school for midwifery, as well as a clinic for tuberculosis in Sussex. Interestingly enough, McCall is noted for her belief in the “power of prayer”.

Hospitals

As we saw from the post Irresistible, Christians have been focusing on caring for the poor and sick since the time of Christ. But what about later on?

Up until the Middle Ages, public (and private) hospitals were nonexistent, aside from the military kind. Most doctors would make “house calls,” often doing the surgeries and procedures in the family’s own home. However, things began to change.

After the Christian Church had been well-founded, monasteries began to spring up in many towns across Europe. The monasteries soon had church attachments that functioned as hospitals. These were places where the poor, sick, travelers, and elderly could be taken care of if they didn’t already have a family that could do so. In major cities, hospitals were established as stand-alone entities. For example, in London some of the first hospitals were: St. Bartholomew’s (est. 1123), St. Thomas’ (1215), and Guy’s (1721), all established by Christians.


Conclusion:

Dr. Alfred Adler, a well-known psychiatrist, had a remarkable opinion after he considered the talks with his countless clients:

“The most important task imposed by religion has always been, ‘Love thy neighbor….’ It is the individual who is not interested in his fellow man who has the greatest difficulties in life and provides the greatest injury on others. It is from among such individuals that all human failures spring.”

Throughout history, we see categorically that Christianity does change people for the better. In the field of medicine, Christ’s teachings about the value of human life will leave an everlasting impact on the world.

~ by johnfoxe on May 29, 2008.

9 Responses to “Good Christianity: Medicine”

  1. […] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptWhile this isn’t an air-tight argument, it still needs to be made. If Christianity really does change lives, we should expect genuine Christians to reflect this change. Now even though this isn’t an “Empirical” argument (define: … […]

  2. […] Peterlab wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIf Christianity really does change lives, we should expect genuine Christians to reflect this change. Now even though this isn’t an “Empirical” argument (define: Empirical),we remember that Empirical Evidence isn’t all that’s needed in … […]

  3. … two sides to every story:
    http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm

    A rather harsh presentation of the other side I admit but it still contains some compelling arguments. Especially the picture accompanying this article (the rod of ascelepius) is quite interesting regarding the origin of medicine.

    Wim.

  4. Thank you for this post…Wim, this isn’t about where medicine came from, this is about how and why people practice it. Faith, love hope and tolerance#peace

  5. I actually viewed that article prior to writing my own article.

    A couple of points:

    1) I never stated that Christianity was at the foundation of modern medicine or science. I merely stated that some of the forefronts of medicine were led by Christians. This is historical fact.

    2) You seem to confuse the types of my arguments. Every argument I give isn’t of the same level. In this particular case, I’m not arguing that Christianity is right because of it’s large part in Medicine. The point being made is general: Genuine Christianity brings forth good, not bad. Most of these people stated that their practices and reforms CAME out of Christ and his teachings.

    I’d recommend you proofreading your supporting arguments before posting :p In this case, it has little-to-nothing to do with what we’re talking about here 🙂

  6. 1) From the article above:
    “ …Up until the Middle Ages, public (and private) hospitals were nonexistent … The monasteries soon had church attachments that functioned as hospitals ….”
    I believe we have a contradiction here.

    2) From the article I suggested:
    “When Constantine established orthodox Christianity in 325 CE (at the Council of Nicaea), scientific investigation virtually stopped. Up until that time, Greek and Roman science and medicine stood at the pinnacle of reasoned thought. With the aimed destruction of any thought that went against religious dogma, the Christians tried to destroy every pagan and scientific literature including the great libraries of the world.”
    and
    “… The first Christian hospitals, on the other hand, did not aim to cure the sick through scientific medicine at all, but rather to condemn or to save the sick through religious practices…”
    and
    ”… Mother Teresa’s donated income went mostly to religious institutions, not the poor and suffering. Moreover, she wanted to keep the poor in poverty because of her faith of “Christ in the broken body,” and that to come close to Jesus, the poor must suffer like Jesus …”
    And
    “Many early heretic physicians hid their knowledge of Galen to prevent others of accusing them of heresy.”

    … You mean those genuine Christians?

    And to continue … how many good did the middle ages to mankind, how much good does the Christian inspired ban on condoms do, how much good does the Christian inspired ban on stem cell research do?

    As the article I mentioned also suggested; medicine advanced only AFTER the church gradually began loosing their grip on people and –even to some extent up to today- it was virtually unthinkable to reject Christianity and still be heard. Everyone had to remain a façade of being devout to Christianity in fear being excluded.

    If you kill/discriminate/exclude/deny hundreds people … are you absolved because you were kind or saved one?

    I do believe that is relevant to your article.

    Wim.

  7. 1) We’re really dancing around semantics. Official hospitals weren’t common before the middle ages. A private hospital is not the same as a “small hospital”. The monasteries and Christian clinics that functioned as hospitals were in effect NOT hospitals, but churches and clinics. Churches today often offer free clinical support but they are obviously not hospitals.

    2) The article has a factual error and doesn’t define its terms. Christianity was officially established LONG before Constantine ever came into being. It was officially recognized in Rome in the First Century.

    The article has no factual support. It was written, not by historians, but by biased….ATHEISTS. If you examine objective histories, you’ll see that scientific progress has generally, progressed! throughout history. Besides, if Christianity really did presuppose some hatred towards “science,” you wouldn’t have scientists who helped with modern medicine, as well as scientists today. It’s an obvious fallacy that debaters have to dance around.

    As far as Mother Teresa is concerned, I would plead lack of historical knowledge on behalf of the article. She did so much to help the poor and sick that it’s shameful you (and they) would bring her good name in to some contempt.

    3) Stem Cell research and Condoms? This is really grasping at straws! A couple of points:

    1) You’re confusing political stances and religious views. Plenty of Christians stand on both sides of both issues. Need I remind you there are plenty of Liberal AND Republican Christians today.

    2) Stem Cell Research? The Christians I know only oppose it’s role in aborted child-research. But this is the stance of many scientists. It’s well-known that Adult Stem-Cell research is much more valuable.

    Condoms? Have you done your homework here either? Christians stand on both sides of child prevention issues. Personally, I don’t think you’d have to worry about child-prevention if you didn’t sleep around with whomever you wanted to. I do support some types of child-prevention for married couples (such as condoms), but I don’t agree with hormone pills and such.

    I’m still skeptical to your arguments. You’ve raised little evidence (insanely biased at that), and broadened your attack on Christianity.

    We now a problem:

    This forum is about Finding the Truth. Instead of trying to reason with us, you’re closer to shouting at us. You’re attacking Christianity with one atheistic article, on a website designed to hate Christians. Let’s say that I argued with you, attacking atheism citing an article about militant Islam. My article is not going to promote intelligent discussion, but discord and anger.

    This raises the painfully obvious idea that your comments come from attack on Christianity, and not a desire to Find Truth.

    Avoid such formats and contents of commenting or I won’t allow your comments.

  8. Debatable, but it’s your site so I’ll comply.

    Wim.

  9. Our other debate in the ‘Mazda Machine’ seems to be progressing in a different way. Let’s build bridges where possible.

Leave a comment