Could Modern-Day Jesus Face Jail for Healing Cancer Without a License?

In the 1990s, there was a trial in a Los Angeles courtroom involving a defendant charged with selling medical drugs without a license to practice medicine. Although the defendant argued that the substance he was selling was naturally produced in the body and effective, the judge maintained that the case simply revolved around the questions of a) whether he was practicing medicine and b) whether he had a government-issued license. With both answers being positive, the man was sentenced to prison for several years.

This case highlights a problem within the medical and pharmaceutical industries and how the government plays a controlling role in determining the course of action when it comes to healing. If Jesus were walking the earth today, would the US government allow him to cure cancer? He likely would not, as he would be considered a threat to their tightly-regulated industry.

Threat To Profits

Imagine a scenario where Jesus was able to cure 50,000 people suffering from cancer in a stadium. This would significantly threaten the profits of numerous pharmaceutical companies. There would also likely be serious consequences for any media that highlighted this event because their very existence relies on the revenue derived from pharmaceutical advertising.

The Power of Superstition

In this hypothetical situation, political powers and major media sources would likely criticize the fans of Jesus for being anti-science and anti-progress by embracing superstition in place of modern medicine. These criticisms would be used to defend the government’s approach to healing through licenses.

The Power of Contracts

However, what if we examine the alternative to licenses – contracts? In this case, consenting adults would assume responsibility for any outcomes related to a treatment or healing process. Undoubtedly, opponents would argue that this freedom would be exploited or potentially lead to unregulated, disastrous results. But why should the government have the authority to determine what is right or wrong when it comes to how we treat our bodies?

The Question of Freedom

If the government has the power to make decisions on our behalf, it is essentially saying that it knows what is best for us – even if that means we must endure potentially harmful side effects. Does that truly embody freedom?

If we look at the case of Rawesome Foods in Los Angeles, we can see that even voluntary clubs have come under fire. Is it the government’s place to disallow such clubs from forming because they fear it will disrupt the status quo?

The Role of Religion

Religion has a place in this discussion, as it embodies a contract created among consenting adults. Despite what an individual’s personal beliefs may be, it is important to remember that everybody should have the right to practice their faith and exercise their beliefs, even if it goes against the government’s ideas of what it means to practice medicine.

If Jesus were to walk the earth today, it is very likely that he would be arrested for practicing medicine without a license, even if his methods were helping multitudes of people. This thought-provoking scenario reflects the ongoing debate about the government’s role in regulation and whether it’s truly in the best interest of our health and freedom.