Abraham Kovoor
The other cases are no more
rewarding for the miracle seeker. Mrs. Costas (1947) has 'such obvious
possibilities for ordinary explanations' Even if Francis Pascal had been
miraculously cured of his blindness in 1938, "the medical documentation is
so poor that we could never be sure of it".
Miss. Cannin was said to be suffering from
tubercular peritonitis when cured i~ 1947, but Dr. West protests against the
view that T.B. peritonitis was "finally established on clinical
grounds". Ail that one can say is that the "patient suffered from a
long-standing but fluctuating abdominal disturbance of undetermined
origin". "It could have been in part, functional" he continues,
for she "had recovered several times before, and she recovered again very
rapidly after her visit to Lourdes ".
Mrs. Rose Martin's (1947) case
deserves clear scrutiny because it is claimed that she was cured of cancer. She
had a swelling in the bowel which was diagnosed as cancer, but Dr. West finds
it "surprising" that her surgeon (Dr. Fey) “did not consider it
worthwhile to make sure the swelling was cancerous by ordering a biopsy or at least
by carrying out a rectoscopy". Dr. Strobino at Lourdes "argues that the diagnosis of
cancer was virtually certain and a biopsy unnecessary since the patient was bedridden
and wasting away"; but this argument carries little conviction, says Dr. West,
because "other complications besides cancer could have produced both swelling
and wasting illness". Several examples are given but the most likely is
that Mrs. Martin was simply suffering from severe constipation and that the
lump was a mass of compressed faeces". It is known that she was taking
large doses of morphine - a drug which causes severe constipation - and it is
significant that the Lourdes
doctors stress that there had been "no abnormal evacuation of the bowels
prior to the dramatic recovery". If there had been, says. Dr. West,
"It could have been an. important point in favour of the compressed faeces
of inflammatory mass interpretations, hence the importance of denying it".
“Unfortunately for the protagonists of the miracle cure”, he continues,
"the Lourdes
dossier contains an account by Mrs. Martin herself of just such an evacuation
during the journey. A nurse, Miss. Glory, remembers that Mrs. Martin used the
bed-pan, and that she was constantly demanding morphine. On the advice of the
pilgrimage doctor, Miss Glory, gave an injection of Lourdes water and camphor instead of the
morphine - a fact that "may well explain the sudden relief of the
patient's constipation and passing away of the offending matter and the consequent
recovery". Dr. West doubts Mrs. Martin's cancerous condition and “therefore
fails to see why her recovery was considered miraculous or even partially remarkable.
Every lay-member of the Roman
Catholic Church, who is encouraged by the Church to go on pilgrimage to Lourdes , should read the
book "Eleven Lourdes Miracles" by Dr. DJ. West, M.B. CH. B., D.P.M.
(Duckworth).
Dr. West critically examines the
eleven cases that have been proclaimed miraculous by Canonical Commissions
dating between 1937 and 1952. Each case has passed through the three stages
necessary for adoption as miracles. They have been investigated and reviewed
by the Lourdes Medical Bureau, by the International Medical Commission in Paris , and finally by the
Ecclesiastical Commission. Anyone of these three bodies may reject a case, and
it is interesting to see how many are rejected.
In the years 1946, '47 and '48,
the Lourdes Medical Bureau found 194 cases worthy of further examination, and
eventually only 19 of these cases were passed on to the International Medical
Commission. The Medical Commission accepted only one of these. In 1949 they
accepted three and rejected three. Of the six cases accepted by the International
Medical Commission only three have been declared by the Ecclesiastical
Commission.
It will be seen then, that the
church does not rashly pronounce a miracle cure. Dr. West takes the eleven
cures pronounced miraculous by the Canonical Commission since 1946. But he
first makes clear the restricted nature of the 'miracles'. They are not, he
says, "of a type that an outsider would consider self-evidently
miraculous. There are no cases of lost eyes or amputated legs sprouting anew.
There are very few cases of recovery from incurable diseases, and very many
cases of dramatically swift recovery from serious but potentially curable
conditions like tuberculosis". He adds; "In most cases no claim can
fairly be made about the cure unless the patient is subjected to rigorous
examination immediately before and immediately after the alleged cure.
Unfortunately, this never happens".
One of the eleven cases is
considered in detail. It is that of Miss G. Clauzel, whose Rheumatic
spondylitis with compression of the nerve roots was allegedly cured during Mass
on August 15th, 1943. The patient's own doctor (Dr. Maurin) provides the chief
medical document dated May 21't, 1944, and this is given in full. Dr. West
finds that; "As a medical document, Dr. Maurin's report, like so many of
the accounts to be found in the Lourdes
files and publications, is curiously imprecise and unsatisfactory. Miss.
Clauzel had an obscure disorder of many years' duration, and at no stage does
she appear to have had a complete investigation such as would be carried out on
a similar case in any modern hospital”.
The fact that the consultant
referred to was a psychiatrist is withheld. "Dr. Maurin's explanation of
the whole case in tenns of extensive nerve-root compression is scarcely
plausible". Miss. Clauzel's symptoms seem to be more severe and extraordinary
than can be accounted for by the spinal arthritis and postural defect which is
all that is indicated in the X-ray report dated August 20th 1945. Dr. West
suspects hysteria, and "if the Clauzel case is just another example of
hysteria cured dramatically by suggestion, it hardly seems worthwhile
discussing it further".
The Lourdes’s Medical Bureau's
report throws no further light on the nature of the illness, but it reveals
"an attitude" of mind in the doctors responsible, wh9 seem determined
to avoid the obvious natural explanation".
The report of the Canonical
Commission is also given, but it merely reiterates their own particular
interpretation of the evidence "with no consideration of alternative
possibilities", and it glosses over "the absence of any clear
evidence as to the organic basis of Miss Clauzel's illness".
Dr. West concludes that "in
this and in many other instances the Lourdes Bureau has lent its support to
cures without sufficiently investigating the case and without giving fair
consideration to interpretations that do not fit in with the idea of a
miracle".
Image Courtesy: Wikipedia |
Colonel Pellagrin's case of liver
abscess and fistula (1950) is not remarkable for the healing, but for the
"coincidence between the closure of the fistula and the visit to Lourdes ", and the
alleged rapidity of the healing. There is, also "impreciseness regarding
crucial dates", and "as a result of treatment the Colond"'s
fever was cured, his general health improved and his weight increased long
before he visited Lourdes .
The closure of the fistula was merely the last stage of a lengthy process of
recovery".
Sister Mary Marguerite did not go
to Lourdes , but recovered after prayer and the
taking of Lourdes
water. "Without careful medical substantiation of such case, the
sceptically minded are unlikely to be interested", says Dr. West, and
"the original dossier has disappeared from the Lourdes files". In the report of the
LOURDES BULLETIN No.69, July 1946, "we are told practically nothing"
and the nun's medical adviser, Dr. Philouze, reveals "a surprising lack of
appreciation of the sort of information required so that one cannot place much
confidence in his medical judgment."
"Such an event" he
says; "deserves no special comment".
Jeanne Fretel's case (1948)
"seems practically most remarkable; it is a tragedy that information is so
lacking. On the unsatisfactory, jumbled and inconsistent information
available, no definite scientific statement can be made about Jeanne Fretel's
condition”.
The absence of "crucial
evidence" is "regrettable" about Fraulein Traute Fulda (1950).
Regarding Mrs. Cauteault (1952),
since the underlying cause is so obscure, the diagnosis is more of a label than
an exact scientific concept, and it may well cover a while a variety of philosophical processes ...”
In the case of Miss. Louise
Jamain (1937) Dr. West concludes, "it is sad and tantalizing that there
should be conflict between the bacteriological and radiological findings, and
consequent doubt as to the interpretation of the case".
Lourdes water in individual plastic bottles for distribution courtesy: Wikipedia |
Each of the eleven cases
mentioned in this book is found wanting. Insufficient evidence, unsatisfactory
diagnosis, sometimes a lack of honesty; these and other factors help to create
the illusion of Lourdes !
The weakness of the Lourdes doctors, says Dr.
West, "is that, being impelled to arrive at a predetermined goal, they
cannot let themselves be carried along by the facts, and must strive to carry
the facts with them.
Dr. West is unlikely to convince
a fervent Catholic, but he cannot fail to impress the critical reader. While
the Lourdes Medical Bureau claims eleven miraculous cures during the years 1937
to 1952, no mention is made of the hundreds of deaths miraculous or otherwise
- which have taken place at Lourdes
during the same period!
It would be equally revealing and
interesting if, like Dr. West some one in this country conducts a scientific
research into the numerous alleged miracles at the numerous
"Lourdes" scattered allover Ceylon such as Madhu, Talawila, Thevatta,
All Saints, St. Sebastin, Adam's Peak, Kataragama, Munneswaram, Koneswaram,
Thirukethiswaram, Beruwala etc.
Editor's Note: The book referred to by Dr Kovoor, "Eleven Lourdes Miracles: A Critical Analysis of "Miracle Cures" at the Lourdes Shrine, Based on Medical Investigation of Selected Case Histories" was published by Helix Press in 1957. The book seems to be now out-of-print.
Editor's Note: The book referred to by Dr Kovoor, "Eleven Lourdes Miracles: A Critical Analysis of "Miracle Cures" at the Lourdes Shrine, Based on Medical Investigation of Selected Case Histories" was published by Helix Press in 1957. The book seems to be now out-of-print.
Courtesy: Abraham Kovoor, Exposing
Paranormal Claims, published by B. Premanand
Date of Publication: 15 March
2000
0 comments:
Post a Comment