It has been recently alleged (N. Engl. J. Med. R.A. Charo J.D., 2005) that Christian physicians exercising conscience as a pro-life witness may be practicing a neologism pejoratively portrayed as “conscience without consequence.” That is to say, their pro-life activities, broadly protected under law--in contrast to the prominent examples of Bonhoeffer and King--are not accompanied by any adverse consequences (whether jail or financial penalties). Furthermore, it has been intimated that in the same cultural circumstances, other more traditional aspects of the medical professional’s role appear to be simultaneously curtailed, such as timely referral for consultation and treatment (specifically in regard to their pro-life activities), night, house calls, and charity care (relating to the more general, traditional duties of medical practice).Is the allegation—that is, conscience without consequence--just? In regard to charity care, there has been evidence suggesting that Christian physicians provide a lesser proportion of charity care than other physician cohorts. It would also seem that there should be more to a Christian vocation in medicine than laudable public activity in a sanctity of life sphere. In an effort to initiate discussion, and at the same time to propose a “holistic” description for a distinctly Christian practice of medicine, a theological historical survey--incorporating work by Ferngren and Imber--will be undertaken. The material will specifically address conscience, philanthropia, and vocation as they developed and were practiced in the early Church (specifically the initial four centuries common era) and late in the Christian-Hippocratic tradition (with Imber’s emphasis on the last two centuries in America). Although these eras were separated by many centuries, a healing ministry representative of Christianity for both simultaneously evidenced a prolife witness, charity care, and commitment to a “demanding” vocation. Not only was a sanctity of life ethic emblematic of early Christianity and its confessing physicians, but that ethic was more broadly comprised of a witness applied to abortion, suicide, exposure, and the gladiatorial games. These prior Christian models will be contrasted with a contemporary ethos characterized multiple competing definitions for professionalism, an ostensible loss of vocational priority, and substitution of a corporately transformed or entrepreneurial medical practice in contrast to a long-lived commitment to the “least of these.” Ferngren’s work demonstrates that the imago Dei and the Incarnation served as the foundation for physician healing activities and consequently an intimate connection to the poor. That theology was weaved seamlessly within the inherited Hippocratic tradition. The allegation that a singular commitment to conscience in the pro-life arena may be inconsistent with a holistic commitment to a medical vocation may have substantial merit. Christian history strongly suggests that a more holistic definition—one cognizant of a biblical and historical-tradition-informed model-- has become essential for today’s Christian physicians.