Ellen G. White and Her Critics

The Second Medical Witness Examined

And now the second medical witness. The critic declares: EGWC 77.2

“Dr. Wm. Russell, long a Seventh-day Adventist, and a chief physician in the [Battle Creek] Sanitarium, wrote July 12, 1869, that he had made up his mind some time in the past, ‘that Mrs. White’s visions were the result of a diseased organization or condition of the brain or nervous system.’” EGWC 77.3

Let us examine certain facts that bear on Dr. Russell’s qualifications as a medical witness: EGWC 77.4

1. The Battle Greek Sanitarium [originally Western Health Reform Institute] was opened in September, 1866. Dr. Russell wrote in July, 1869. And where was Mrs. White during most of the time between these dates? In Battle Greek, where the doctor could observe her? No. She was either traveling or living at her home in Greenville, Michigan, trying to nurse back to health her husband, who had suffered a “stroke” in 1865. EGWC 78.1

2. And how many public visions did Mrs. White have in Battle Creek during this period of time, so that Dr. Russell, “a chief physician in the Sanitarium,” might observe her with careful medical eye? So far as the records reveal she had one, on Friday night, June 12, 1868, while preaching at the Tabernacle. But there is no evidence that Dr. Russell or any other doctor examined her at that time. EGWC 78.2

3. There is no evidence that Mrs. White was ever Dr. Russell’s patient at the sanitarium. Nor does the meager fraction of a sentence quoted from him make any such claim. EGWC 78.3

4. There is no evidence, even, that he was “a chief physician.” On the contrary there is clear evidence that he was considered quite otherwise by the responsible leadership of the church. Before us, as we write, is an eight-page leaflet, the only heading to which is the large bold-face opening clause: “To Whom it May Concern.” The first page of this leaflet states that on March 23, 1869, Dr. Wm. Russell left the Health Institute to call on a patient in Wisconsin, and presumably to open a sanitarium there. The leaflet contains a statement regarding his lack of qualifications to manage a medical institution. This is followed by a testimony of reproof from Mrs. White. EGWC 78.4

In the light of this testimony from her, in the spring of 1869, it is not hard to understand why Dr. Russell, who probably never treated Mrs. White as a patient, and who almost certainly never examined her medically while she was in vision, might write as it is alleged he wrote, in the summer of that year. EGWC 78.5

5. There is an encouraging sequel to the 1869 incident of the eight-page leaflet and Mrs. White’s testimony. In the The Review and Herald, April 25, 1871, appears a communication from Dr. Russell addressed to “Dear Bro. and Sr. White,” in which he repents of his waywardness in rejecting her testimony to him. We quote two sentences: “Had I heeded your reproof and counsel I would have saved myself much sadness and great loss. Space will not allow me to particularize, but I hope in future to undo as far as I can all the wrongs I may have done.”—Page 152. EGWC 78.6