A consideration of the legal aspects of chiropractic : and more particularly of the question whether or not chiropractic is included within the terms of the Michigan Medical Act-Act. No. 237, Public Laws of 1899, as amended-and is subject to the provisions of that act. Brief, argument and authorities for the affirmative / by Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Counsel for American Medical Association.

  • Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Chicago.
Date:
[1911]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A consideration of the legal aspects of chiropractic : and more particularly of the question whether or not chiropractic is included within the terms of the Michigan Medical Act-Act. No. 237, Public Laws of 1899, as amended-and is subject to the provisions of that act. Brief, argument and authorities for the affirmative / by Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Counsel for American Medical Association. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

    37/94 (page 29)
    arg'ue that such legislation is an interference with the inalien- able right of a citizen when ill to emplo}' anj'body he chooses as his physician. This contention is not snpportecl by author- it)^ or reason. The practice of medicine affects the pnblic health, and it is clearly within the police power of the State to provide that those dealing with disease shall be amply quali- fiecl to do so, so far as human experience and education may cjualify them. If this contention be adopted, then the law j)roTicling for the admission of attorneys to practice law is unconstitutional and void. This legislation has been almost universally sustained by the courts of other States and the Supreme Court of the United States. Among the cases are the following, which we cite Avithout further comment: Siate V. Dent, 25 W. Aa., 1, affirmed in Dent v. AY est Virginia, 129 U. S., 114 (9 Sup. Ct., 231) ; 8tate v. Welster, 150 Ind., 607 (50 jST. E., 750), and authorities there cited. In the same case on appeal, 188 U. S., 505; 47 L. ed., 563; 23 Sup. Ct. Eep., 390, the United States Supreme Court said in an opinion by Mr. Justice Brewer (page 565, 47 L. ed.) : The power of a state to make reasonable provisions for determining the qualifications of those engaging in the prac- tice of medicine, and punishing those who attempt to engage therein in defiance of such statutory provisions, is not open to question. Deni v. West Virginia, 129 U. S., 114; 32 L. ed, 623; 9 Sup. Ct. Eep., 231; Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189; 42 L. ed., 1002; 18 Sup. Ct. Eep., 573, and cases cited in the opinion. State ex rel. Burroughs v. Webster. 150 Ind., 607; 41 L. E. A., 212; 50 N. E., 750, and cases cited. People v. Phippin, 70 Michigan, 6; 37 ]Sr. W., 888, was decided in 1888, and arose under the old Medical Act, Act No. 167, Laws of 1883, entitled An Act to promote public health. The court, in holding that this act was constitutional, says on page 19 : There is no good reason why restraints should not be placed upon the practice of medicine as well as the law. The public are more directly interested in this than in the practice of the law; and persons who engage in this profession require a spe- cial education to qualify them to practice. A great majority of the public know little of the anatomy of the human system, or of the nature of the ills that human flesh is heir to; and there is no profession, no occupation or calling, where people may more easily or readily be imposed upon by charlatans. It is almost an every-day experience that people afflicted with disease will purchase and swallow all sorts of nostrums because some quack has recommended it. Up to the passage of the act in question, the people of this State were wholly unprotected against quackery, except such protection as the common law afforded.