Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 25, No. 4, Winter 1986
Editorial
Twenty-Five Years With this issue of the Journal of Religion and Health we m a r k twenty-five years of continuous publication. The first issue was dated October 1961. The first full y ea r of publication was 1962. It is, after a quart er of a century, appropriate to look back at a bit of history. The Journal was created by the staff of the Academy of Religion and Mental Health. The Academy was founded in 1954 by the Rev. George Christian Anderson, an Episcopal clergyman and chaplain at St. Luke's Hospital in New York. E arl y in the 1950s George's concern with better understanding and communication among professionals concerned with h u m a n health: clergy, physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, pastoral counselors, institutional chaplains, and others involved with ministering to the sick in body and spirit, led him to form an organization for the purpose of f ur t he r i ng this kind of exchange of ideas and feeling. The Academy was a membership organization with a n u m b e r of chapters in various cities and centers of medical and theological education throughout the country. Its individual membership at one time came to more t han 3,400 people. Many of the chapters held educational programs for the professionals within their own areas of influence and service. Representatives of the branches came together once a y ear for the Academy's annual conference, which was held in various cities around the nation and featured prominent leaders on topics of c u r r e n t interest, as well as workshops for professionals on specific problems of theory and practice. In addition, the Academy sponsored and organized a series of annual symposiums which were held at Arden House in H a r r i m a n , New York, and were attended by invited professional guests who pooled t hei r insights and understandings of particular problems. The Academy published a series of books summarizing the proceedings and guidelines for professionals produced at these symposiums. The Journal was established as a f u r t h e r means of promoting communication. As one of those who were "present at the creation," we can testify t h a t all of us had both high expectations and serious anxieties about the future of a journal of this kind. For one thing, it was to be interdisciplinary r a t h e r t h a n specialized. It was to relate fields of knowledge to one anot her on the broad and not always accurate assumption t h a t the specialists in particular fields would listen to as well as talk with one another. It was to be open to all kinds of ideas, experimental as well as tried and true, without committing itself to final answers. It was to welcome contributions from Catholic, Protestant, Jew, and agnostic or humanist, as well as insights from other religious and ethnic cultures beyond the Western world. It was to deal with big ideas r a t h e r t h a n narrow ones. In short, the Journal was, following Markham's famous poem, to draw the circles t h a t took everyone in r a t h e r t h a n those smaller ones t h a t shut dis249
~'~ 1986 Institutes of Religion and H e a l t h
250
Journal of Religion and Health
senters out. We wondered if there would be enough interest to sustain such an effort. It is perhaps symbolic that the first issue of the Journal, October 1961, carried a lead article by the late Harold Wolff, M~D., of the faculty of neurology at the Cornell University Medical College, New York, on "The Mind-Body Relationship." As one can see, we at least did not shrink from tackling one of the philosophical world's perennial problems. There was an article by Rollo May, a distinguished psychoanalyst and well-known author on psychotherapeutic problems, entitled "Existential Psychiatry." The Rev. Andr6 Godin, S.J., of Brussels contributed a piece on "Mental Health and the Christian Life." A.A. Berle, Jr., a distinguished social scientist, legal scholar, and retired government official, wrote of "Religion and Health in Modern Statecraft." Armond Cohen, rabbi of the nation's largest Reform synagogue, discussed the significance of the prayer of Maimonides, 1135-1204. Finally, Dr. Harvey J. Tompkins, who with George Anderson had played an active part in helping found the Academy, along with many other professionals, wrote of the Academy's present situation and future prospects. Looking back on that first issue, we t h i n k it was sufficiently broad to leave the future open to a wide variety ofpossibilities in scientific disciplines, religious affiliations, topics to be considered, and authors to consider them. No consideration of the early years of the Journal would be complete without mention of its associate editor, J e a n Conti, who advised and guided the editor in m a n y ways with her vast experience in scientific-professional writing and her skill and taste as a stylist of language. Her influence, more than any other, accounts for the standards of literary excellence we have tried to set and continue for the Journal and its authors. They may seem fussy and over-meticulous at times, but they are meant to increase the effectiveness and clarity of the message the author is trying to convey. One story about J e a n explains both her power and her persuasiveness. She once laid before us as editor a suggestion for guidelines for authors. One such guideline read: "We follow the University of Chicago Manual of Style except where we disagree with its" We asked Jean, "Did you mean to say that?" She answered quietly and smilingly, "Of course." The present associate editor, Jean's successor, has tried to keep that tradition alive with, we believe, some success. After all, even scientists, professionals, brilliant scholars, and religious seekers of all kinds should be able to say what they want to say as clearly and succinctly as possible. In 1972 the Academy of Religion and Mental Health merged with the American Foundation of Religion and Psychiatry to form the Institutes of Religion and Health. The Institutes continue to sponsor the publication of the Journal, which is now a member of the publishing family of H u m a n Sciences Press of New York. We cannot here go into all the changes and personalities involved in the Journal's life so far. But we should express our gratefulness to all the scholars and professionals in many different religions, disciplines, countries, and cultures who have contributed their work to the pages of the Journal. We have never over the whole quarter-century paid any one of our authors for the hard and often lengthy labor they have done on our behalf. We suppose, indeed we
Harry C. Meserve
251
hope, t h a t t h e r e h a v e been some n o n - m o n e t a r y r e w a r d s t h a t h a v e accrued to t h e m as a r e s u l t of h a v i n g a p p e a r e d in our pages. We h a v e probably profited s o m e w h a t from the "publish or perish" s y n d r o m e in academia, b u t we like to t h i n k t h a t we h a v e also helped some aspiring new writers to find an o u t l e t for some of t h e i r aspiring new ideas. M a n y w r i t e r s of established r e p u t a t i o n in t h e i r fields h a v e a p p e a r e d in our pages. Some we had to beg for t h e i r contributious. T h e y are too n u m e r o u s for us to risk m e n t i o n i n g by n a m e . B u t t h e r e are m a n y m o r e who t u r n e d to us w h e n t h e y were quite u n k n o w n and were t e n t a tively s e e k i n g to be published. A few h a v e become b e t t e r k n o w n over the years. Once in a while we get a l e t t e r t h a t t h a n k s us for a first a p p e a r a n c e or a t h o u g h t f u l editing, and t h a t m a k e s it all w o r t h while. We t h i n k it is fair to say t h a t we h a v e n e v e r t u r n e d down an article w i t h o u t giving it at least a serious reading, and often t h a t r e a d i n g has been done not only by us b u t by a m e m b e r of our E d i t o r i a l Advisory Board as well. The unsolicited m a n u s c r i p t has a chance w i t h us. If success is to be m e a s u r e d by size of circulation, we can h a r d l y claim to be o u t s t a n d i n g . We seem to appeal to a t h o u g h t f u l few. Or to p u t it e u p h e m i s t i c ally, q u a l i t y r a t h e r t h a n size and p o p u l a r i t y has been our specialty. B u t if we are not the biggest and most popular, at least we are still alive and in print, which is more t h a n can be said for some periodicals we h a v e w a t c h e d s t a r t up like a comet, rise to dizzy heights, and fall out of sight over the years. We h a v e tried to avoid the faddish and the fashionable, believing t h a t concern for t r u t h and r a t i o n a l t h o u g h t are or ought to be always in style. As we h a v e noted, the Journal, while hospitable t o w a r d religion in all its num e r o u s and v a r i e d forms, is c o m m i t t e d to no religion as a dogmatic finality. In t h e same way, we h a v e espoused no a u t h o r i t a t i v e scientific position, no fixed methodologies of medicine, p s y c h i a t r y , psychology, or t h e r a p y . We h a v e t r i e d to m a k e room for a t h o u g h t f u l consideration of m a n y different ones instead. T h e r e is a t e n d e n c y t o d a y in some circles to consider this kind of p l u r a l i s m as w e a k and wishy-washy. We disagree w i t h this tendency. We do not t h i n k t h a t p l u r a l i s m in religion or science, in society or political life, is a w e a k n e s s . R a t h e r , we consider it a source of both s a n i t y and power. P l u r a l i s m is not m e r e t o l e r a t i o n of e v e r y t h i n g and a n y t h i n g . In the most i m p o r t a n t a r e a s of h u m a n concern it is t h e realization t h a t final a n s w e r s do not exist. We m u s t all m a k e do w i t h t r u t h a n d practicality sufficient u n t o the day, w i t h the likelihood t h a t new insights will b r i n g different a n s w e r s to t h e questions we pose. We w a n t to keep this a t m o s p h e r e of free i n q u i r y alive and vigorous, believing t h a t it is the m a t r i x out of which t r u t h e m e r g e s t h r o u g h a process of e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n , r a t i o n a l discussion, and careful n u r t u r e . We h a v e published some " f a r - o u t " pieces from t i m e to t i m e with t h e reflection t h a t the h o u s e h o l d e r in J e s u s ' parable was r i g h t about the w h e a t and the t a r e s in his field, "Let both grow tog e t h e r u n t i l the h a r v e s t . " We do not t h i n k of the Journal as a n a r b i t e r of orthodoxy, b u t as a fertile field, hospitable to ideas, questions, and e v e n i m a g i n a t i v e speculations. We hope t h a t this openness m a y continue in the y e a r s a h e a d , a n d we quote a g a i n W h i t e h e a d ' s famous dictum, "A clash of opinions is not a disast e r but a n o p p o r t u n i t y . " T h a t seems to us one of the wisest a n d most often forgotten of i n t e l l e c t u a l values.
252
Journal of Religion and Health
Many perplexing dilemmas and unresolved questions confront both science and religion today, and they are especially urgent for people concerned with healing sciences and the role of religion in helping to create physical and emotional health. Among t he m are the questions surrounding the n a t u r e of life itself. When does it begin? When does an embryo become a person? What is a soul? How may we, r e t u r n i n g to the perennial philosophical problem, define the relationship between mind and body in the light of the constantly developing insights in fields like microbiology, genetics, and other related sciences? How far ma y the individual or society exert control over the creation of life and its development? Does a woman have the right to control what happens within her own body? Or may society impose its beliefs and value systems even on t h a t private domain? At the other end of the life scale, when does life cease? How shall we define death in a way t ha t gives meaning to its difference from life? Mere signs like breath, heartbeat, and artificially sustained function are not enough. Life has something basically to do with responsiveness. We shall have to explore t h a t relationship with sensitivity and openness of mind. Even more, what rights, if any, does an individual have over his own life and destiny? We were reminded recently in a Journal article t h a t the choice and acceptance of death by Jesus, because it seemed to him the inevitable fulfillment of his own divine destiny, might be construed as an act of positive euthanasia. More and more today we are reminded t h a t it is i n h u m a n and cruel to condemn people to costly and futile suffering simply because by some medical choice they must be "kept alive." We predict t hat both physicians and clergy will have an increasing num be r of cases of this kind to deal with during the years ahead. One of the by-products of high medical technology is t h a t we are more and more able to sustain the appearances of life long after the reality of life, its warmth, its responses, and its meaning, have departed from the sufferer. We invite contributions for our pages on these admittedly difficult and controversial subjects in the confidence t h a t thoughtful discussion of varied ideas about t he m will do much to clarify them in the professional mind and lead toward workable solutions and h u m a n e public policies. Most of the issues which the Journal deals with are, of course, m at t ers t h a t relate to individual health and the achievement or maintenance of wholeness. The diagnosis, t r e a t m ent , therapy, rehabilitation, and cure of the person and his illness is our central concern and will remain so. But recent decades have created a situation where we are compelled to think not only of the care and survival of individuals, but also of the precarious state of the h u m a n race and the planet itself. Having, through immense scientific labor and experiment, reached a place where we can now destroy ourselves completely and render our ear th uninhabitable for millions of years to come, we are faced with a new health problem. It might be called the self-destructive tendencies of the societies we have created and the slavery of the individual persons in those societies to the militaristic, war-preparing, and eventually war-producing way of life. The worst addiction of the h u m a n race is not tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. It is the profoundly ingrained, steadily practiced habit of making war even when the mak in g of war has become as lethal for the victor as for the defeated. In a process of madness t h a t defies analysis, we have let our science become the hand-
Harry C. Meserve
253
m a i d e n of our most destructive impulses, our worst fears, our sickest hates. O u r economic wealth, our n a t u r a l resources, our best brains, our most vigorous energies are d r a i n e d a w a y to create a killing m a c h i n e which, we tell ourselves, will m a k e us safe from all the o t h e r killing machines. E x c e p t t h a t , in our sane m o m e n t s , in our hearts, we know it will not m a k e us safe at all. It will only h a s t e n the coming of t h a t self-prepared d e s t r u c t i o n in which our addiction to violence has engulfed us. T r u l y this is the Moloch of the Old T e s t a m e n t , the h a t e f u l god who devours our children, our homes, our lands, our towns and cities, our whole civilization, the h u m a n e x p e r i m e n t itself. If h e a l t h is sanity, and we believe it is, t h e n it becomes the obligation of all who h a v e a p a r t in the h e a l i n g sciences to l e a r n how to c o n t r i b u t e to the cure of the h u m a n m a l a i s e t h a t will lead us out of the w a r - m a k i n g habit. T h e scientists, the doctors, t h e clergy, all of us who believe in the saving, reconciling, rec r e a t i v e roles of knowledge and love m u s t somehow liberate science from its bondage to m i l i t a r i s m and set it free a g a i n to serve h u m a n needs a n d the E a r t h ' s needs as it is m e a n t to do. We m u s t t u r n our a t t e n t i o n to the h u m a n e uses of science so t h a t its wonders, powers, and m a r v e l o u s skills are not w a s t e d on destruction. M a n y scientists are a w a r e of this problem and h a v e a l r e a d y beg u n to work together. P h y s i c i a n s for Social Responsibility is only one e x a m p l e of this kind of scientific concern. B u t u n h a p p i l y m a n y , p e r h a p s most, of t h e people now in power in the world's g o v e r n m e n t s are not even a w a r e t h a t t h e r e is a problem. T h e y a c t u a l l y believe t h a t by piling up a r m a m e n t s t h e y are m a k ing people safe and the world secure. So vast is the economic, political, a n d corp o r a t e stake in this process t h a t millions follow t h e m u n t h i n k i n g l y . W h a t t h e r a p y can we devise for this i m m e n s e and d a n g e r o u s m a d n e s s ? H o w can we drive our leaders s t a r k r a v i n g sane so t h a t t h e y t h i n k of h u m a n lives and h u m a n welfare and the E a r t h itself as essentials of a n y k i n d of s u r v i v a l ? T h e s e are the questions with which the effort to work out the h u m a n e use of science is concerned. It is our hope t h a t over the y e a r s a h e a d the Journal, along w i t h m a n y others, m a y be one of a growing chorus of voices b r i n g i n g k n o w l e d g e and h u m a n e concern to the consciousness of professionals in t h e h e a l i n g arts and sciences. T h e i r s is the saving t a s k of c r e a t i n g a h u m a n e science.
Harry C. Meserve
Editorial
Twenty-Five Years With this issue of the Journal of Religion and Health we m a r k twenty-five years of continuous publication. The first issue was dated October 1961. The first full y ea r of publication was 1962. It is, after a quart er of a century, appropriate to look back at a bit of history. The Journal was created by the staff of the Academy of Religion and Mental Health. The Academy was founded in 1954 by the Rev. George Christian Anderson, an Episcopal clergyman and chaplain at St. Luke's Hospital in New York. E arl y in the 1950s George's concern with better understanding and communication among professionals concerned with h u m a n health: clergy, physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, pastoral counselors, institutional chaplains, and others involved with ministering to the sick in body and spirit, led him to form an organization for the purpose of f ur t he r i ng this kind of exchange of ideas and feeling. The Academy was a membership organization with a n u m b e r of chapters in various cities and centers of medical and theological education throughout the country. Its individual membership at one time came to more t han 3,400 people. Many of the chapters held educational programs for the professionals within their own areas of influence and service. Representatives of the branches came together once a y ear for the Academy's annual conference, which was held in various cities around the nation and featured prominent leaders on topics of c u r r e n t interest, as well as workshops for professionals on specific problems of theory and practice. In addition, the Academy sponsored and organized a series of annual symposiums which were held at Arden House in H a r r i m a n , New York, and were attended by invited professional guests who pooled t hei r insights and understandings of particular problems. The Academy published a series of books summarizing the proceedings and guidelines for professionals produced at these symposiums. The Journal was established as a f u r t h e r means of promoting communication. As one of those who were "present at the creation," we can testify t h a t all of us had both high expectations and serious anxieties about the future of a journal of this kind. For one thing, it was to be interdisciplinary r a t h e r t h a n specialized. It was to relate fields of knowledge to one anot her on the broad and not always accurate assumption t h a t the specialists in particular fields would listen to as well as talk with one another. It was to be open to all kinds of ideas, experimental as well as tried and true, without committing itself to final answers. It was to welcome contributions from Catholic, Protestant, Jew, and agnostic or humanist, as well as insights from other religious and ethnic cultures beyond the Western world. It was to deal with big ideas r a t h e r t h a n narrow ones. In short, the Journal was, following Markham's famous poem, to draw the circles t h a t took everyone in r a t h e r t h a n those smaller ones t h a t shut dis249
~'~ 1986 Institutes of Religion and H e a l t h
250
Journal of Religion and Health
senters out. We wondered if there would be enough interest to sustain such an effort. It is perhaps symbolic that the first issue of the Journal, October 1961, carried a lead article by the late Harold Wolff, M~D., of the faculty of neurology at the Cornell University Medical College, New York, on "The Mind-Body Relationship." As one can see, we at least did not shrink from tackling one of the philosophical world's perennial problems. There was an article by Rollo May, a distinguished psychoanalyst and well-known author on psychotherapeutic problems, entitled "Existential Psychiatry." The Rev. Andr6 Godin, S.J., of Brussels contributed a piece on "Mental Health and the Christian Life." A.A. Berle, Jr., a distinguished social scientist, legal scholar, and retired government official, wrote of "Religion and Health in Modern Statecraft." Armond Cohen, rabbi of the nation's largest Reform synagogue, discussed the significance of the prayer of Maimonides, 1135-1204. Finally, Dr. Harvey J. Tompkins, who with George Anderson had played an active part in helping found the Academy, along with many other professionals, wrote of the Academy's present situation and future prospects. Looking back on that first issue, we t h i n k it was sufficiently broad to leave the future open to a wide variety ofpossibilities in scientific disciplines, religious affiliations, topics to be considered, and authors to consider them. No consideration of the early years of the Journal would be complete without mention of its associate editor, J e a n Conti, who advised and guided the editor in m a n y ways with her vast experience in scientific-professional writing and her skill and taste as a stylist of language. Her influence, more than any other, accounts for the standards of literary excellence we have tried to set and continue for the Journal and its authors. They may seem fussy and over-meticulous at times, but they are meant to increase the effectiveness and clarity of the message the author is trying to convey. One story about J e a n explains both her power and her persuasiveness. She once laid before us as editor a suggestion for guidelines for authors. One such guideline read: "We follow the University of Chicago Manual of Style except where we disagree with its" We asked Jean, "Did you mean to say that?" She answered quietly and smilingly, "Of course." The present associate editor, Jean's successor, has tried to keep that tradition alive with, we believe, some success. After all, even scientists, professionals, brilliant scholars, and religious seekers of all kinds should be able to say what they want to say as clearly and succinctly as possible. In 1972 the Academy of Religion and Mental Health merged with the American Foundation of Religion and Psychiatry to form the Institutes of Religion and Health. The Institutes continue to sponsor the publication of the Journal, which is now a member of the publishing family of H u m a n Sciences Press of New York. We cannot here go into all the changes and personalities involved in the Journal's life so far. But we should express our gratefulness to all the scholars and professionals in many different religions, disciplines, countries, and cultures who have contributed their work to the pages of the Journal. We have never over the whole quarter-century paid any one of our authors for the hard and often lengthy labor they have done on our behalf. We suppose, indeed we
Harry C. Meserve
251
hope, t h a t t h e r e h a v e been some n o n - m o n e t a r y r e w a r d s t h a t h a v e accrued to t h e m as a r e s u l t of h a v i n g a p p e a r e d in our pages. We h a v e probably profited s o m e w h a t from the "publish or perish" s y n d r o m e in academia, b u t we like to t h i n k t h a t we h a v e also helped some aspiring new writers to find an o u t l e t for some of t h e i r aspiring new ideas. M a n y w r i t e r s of established r e p u t a t i o n in t h e i r fields h a v e a p p e a r e d in our pages. Some we had to beg for t h e i r contributious. T h e y are too n u m e r o u s for us to risk m e n t i o n i n g by n a m e . B u t t h e r e are m a n y m o r e who t u r n e d to us w h e n t h e y were quite u n k n o w n and were t e n t a tively s e e k i n g to be published. A few h a v e become b e t t e r k n o w n over the years. Once in a while we get a l e t t e r t h a t t h a n k s us for a first a p p e a r a n c e or a t h o u g h t f u l editing, and t h a t m a k e s it all w o r t h while. We t h i n k it is fair to say t h a t we h a v e n e v e r t u r n e d down an article w i t h o u t giving it at least a serious reading, and often t h a t r e a d i n g has been done not only by us b u t by a m e m b e r of our E d i t o r i a l Advisory Board as well. The unsolicited m a n u s c r i p t has a chance w i t h us. If success is to be m e a s u r e d by size of circulation, we can h a r d l y claim to be o u t s t a n d i n g . We seem to appeal to a t h o u g h t f u l few. Or to p u t it e u p h e m i s t i c ally, q u a l i t y r a t h e r t h a n size and p o p u l a r i t y has been our specialty. B u t if we are not the biggest and most popular, at least we are still alive and in print, which is more t h a n can be said for some periodicals we h a v e w a t c h e d s t a r t up like a comet, rise to dizzy heights, and fall out of sight over the years. We h a v e tried to avoid the faddish and the fashionable, believing t h a t concern for t r u t h and r a t i o n a l t h o u g h t are or ought to be always in style. As we h a v e noted, the Journal, while hospitable t o w a r d religion in all its num e r o u s and v a r i e d forms, is c o m m i t t e d to no religion as a dogmatic finality. In t h e same way, we h a v e espoused no a u t h o r i t a t i v e scientific position, no fixed methodologies of medicine, p s y c h i a t r y , psychology, or t h e r a p y . We h a v e t r i e d to m a k e room for a t h o u g h t f u l consideration of m a n y different ones instead. T h e r e is a t e n d e n c y t o d a y in some circles to consider this kind of p l u r a l i s m as w e a k and wishy-washy. We disagree w i t h this tendency. We do not t h i n k t h a t p l u r a l i s m in religion or science, in society or political life, is a w e a k n e s s . R a t h e r , we consider it a source of both s a n i t y and power. P l u r a l i s m is not m e r e t o l e r a t i o n of e v e r y t h i n g and a n y t h i n g . In the most i m p o r t a n t a r e a s of h u m a n concern it is t h e realization t h a t final a n s w e r s do not exist. We m u s t all m a k e do w i t h t r u t h a n d practicality sufficient u n t o the day, w i t h the likelihood t h a t new insights will b r i n g different a n s w e r s to t h e questions we pose. We w a n t to keep this a t m o s p h e r e of free i n q u i r y alive and vigorous, believing t h a t it is the m a t r i x out of which t r u t h e m e r g e s t h r o u g h a process of e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n , r a t i o n a l discussion, and careful n u r t u r e . We h a v e published some " f a r - o u t " pieces from t i m e to t i m e with t h e reflection t h a t the h o u s e h o l d e r in J e s u s ' parable was r i g h t about the w h e a t and the t a r e s in his field, "Let both grow tog e t h e r u n t i l the h a r v e s t . " We do not t h i n k of the Journal as a n a r b i t e r of orthodoxy, b u t as a fertile field, hospitable to ideas, questions, and e v e n i m a g i n a t i v e speculations. We hope t h a t this openness m a y continue in the y e a r s a h e a d , a n d we quote a g a i n W h i t e h e a d ' s famous dictum, "A clash of opinions is not a disast e r but a n o p p o r t u n i t y . " T h a t seems to us one of the wisest a n d most often forgotten of i n t e l l e c t u a l values.
252
Journal of Religion and Health
Many perplexing dilemmas and unresolved questions confront both science and religion today, and they are especially urgent for people concerned with healing sciences and the role of religion in helping to create physical and emotional health. Among t he m are the questions surrounding the n a t u r e of life itself. When does it begin? When does an embryo become a person? What is a soul? How may we, r e t u r n i n g to the perennial philosophical problem, define the relationship between mind and body in the light of the constantly developing insights in fields like microbiology, genetics, and other related sciences? How far ma y the individual or society exert control over the creation of life and its development? Does a woman have the right to control what happens within her own body? Or may society impose its beliefs and value systems even on t h a t private domain? At the other end of the life scale, when does life cease? How shall we define death in a way t ha t gives meaning to its difference from life? Mere signs like breath, heartbeat, and artificially sustained function are not enough. Life has something basically to do with responsiveness. We shall have to explore t h a t relationship with sensitivity and openness of mind. Even more, what rights, if any, does an individual have over his own life and destiny? We were reminded recently in a Journal article t h a t the choice and acceptance of death by Jesus, because it seemed to him the inevitable fulfillment of his own divine destiny, might be construed as an act of positive euthanasia. More and more today we are reminded t h a t it is i n h u m a n and cruel to condemn people to costly and futile suffering simply because by some medical choice they must be "kept alive." We predict t hat both physicians and clergy will have an increasing num be r of cases of this kind to deal with during the years ahead. One of the by-products of high medical technology is t h a t we are more and more able to sustain the appearances of life long after the reality of life, its warmth, its responses, and its meaning, have departed from the sufferer. We invite contributions for our pages on these admittedly difficult and controversial subjects in the confidence t h a t thoughtful discussion of varied ideas about t he m will do much to clarify them in the professional mind and lead toward workable solutions and h u m a n e public policies. Most of the issues which the Journal deals with are, of course, m at t ers t h a t relate to individual health and the achievement or maintenance of wholeness. The diagnosis, t r e a t m ent , therapy, rehabilitation, and cure of the person and his illness is our central concern and will remain so. But recent decades have created a situation where we are compelled to think not only of the care and survival of individuals, but also of the precarious state of the h u m a n race and the planet itself. Having, through immense scientific labor and experiment, reached a place where we can now destroy ourselves completely and render our ear th uninhabitable for millions of years to come, we are faced with a new health problem. It might be called the self-destructive tendencies of the societies we have created and the slavery of the individual persons in those societies to the militaristic, war-preparing, and eventually war-producing way of life. The worst addiction of the h u m a n race is not tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. It is the profoundly ingrained, steadily practiced habit of making war even when the mak in g of war has become as lethal for the victor as for the defeated. In a process of madness t h a t defies analysis, we have let our science become the hand-
Harry C. Meserve
253
m a i d e n of our most destructive impulses, our worst fears, our sickest hates. O u r economic wealth, our n a t u r a l resources, our best brains, our most vigorous energies are d r a i n e d a w a y to create a killing m a c h i n e which, we tell ourselves, will m a k e us safe from all the o t h e r killing machines. E x c e p t t h a t , in our sane m o m e n t s , in our hearts, we know it will not m a k e us safe at all. It will only h a s t e n the coming of t h a t self-prepared d e s t r u c t i o n in which our addiction to violence has engulfed us. T r u l y this is the Moloch of the Old T e s t a m e n t , the h a t e f u l god who devours our children, our homes, our lands, our towns and cities, our whole civilization, the h u m a n e x p e r i m e n t itself. If h e a l t h is sanity, and we believe it is, t h e n it becomes the obligation of all who h a v e a p a r t in the h e a l i n g sciences to l e a r n how to c o n t r i b u t e to the cure of the h u m a n m a l a i s e t h a t will lead us out of the w a r - m a k i n g habit. T h e scientists, the doctors, t h e clergy, all of us who believe in the saving, reconciling, rec r e a t i v e roles of knowledge and love m u s t somehow liberate science from its bondage to m i l i t a r i s m and set it free a g a i n to serve h u m a n needs a n d the E a r t h ' s needs as it is m e a n t to do. We m u s t t u r n our a t t e n t i o n to the h u m a n e uses of science so t h a t its wonders, powers, and m a r v e l o u s skills are not w a s t e d on destruction. M a n y scientists are a w a r e of this problem and h a v e a l r e a d y beg u n to work together. P h y s i c i a n s for Social Responsibility is only one e x a m p l e of this kind of scientific concern. B u t u n h a p p i l y m a n y , p e r h a p s most, of t h e people now in power in the world's g o v e r n m e n t s are not even a w a r e t h a t t h e r e is a problem. T h e y a c t u a l l y believe t h a t by piling up a r m a m e n t s t h e y are m a k ing people safe and the world secure. So vast is the economic, political, a n d corp o r a t e stake in this process t h a t millions follow t h e m u n t h i n k i n g l y . W h a t t h e r a p y can we devise for this i m m e n s e and d a n g e r o u s m a d n e s s ? H o w can we drive our leaders s t a r k r a v i n g sane so t h a t t h e y t h i n k of h u m a n lives and h u m a n welfare and the E a r t h itself as essentials of a n y k i n d of s u r v i v a l ? T h e s e are the questions with which the effort to work out the h u m a n e use of science is concerned. It is our hope t h a t over the y e a r s a h e a d the Journal, along w i t h m a n y others, m a y be one of a growing chorus of voices b r i n g i n g k n o w l e d g e and h u m a n e concern to the consciousness of professionals in t h e h e a l i n g arts and sciences. T h e i r s is the saving t a s k of c r e a t i n g a h u m a n e science.
Harry C. Meserve
