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]
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.
76/94 page 68
![Chiropractors make the same bald assertion that they do not attempt to cure disease, but remove or adjust the cause of dis- ease. This is nothing more than a specious jugglery of words—a mere shallow pretense that should deceive no one. Merely to say that Chiropractors 'remove causes of disease while other practi- tioners cure diseases (assuming, for the time being that they do not profess also to remove causes of diseases) does not prove a difference. The test is to look at what each practitioner actually does, not at what he says he does; and it is the silliest nonsense to contend for a moment that the regular practitioners of medicine and surgery, including those who use drugs and instruments, do not try to ascertain the cause of each physical disturbance and then to remove that cause. To attempt to make a distinction on this ground is indeed to play the mountebank and become a mere juggler of phrases. State v. Buswell (1894), 40 Neb., 158; 24 L. E. A., 68; 58 K W., 728, is a Christian Science case, and has already been suffi- ciently referred to. We pass it here with the remark that it is one of the earlier cases that laid down a broad rule of construction for acts regulating the practice of medicine. Witty v. State (1910), — Ind., —; 25 L. E. A. (N. S.), 1297; 90 ]Sr, E., 62, is a case in which defendant had treated a man for rheumatism or lumbago by what defendant denoted as suggestive therapeutics; the treatment consisted of rubbing the spine, groin, and back, and no medicine was given. The patient admitted, as a witness, that this treatment had been beneficial; yet the defendant was convicted. The conviction was affirmed by the Indiana Su- preme Court, which said (page 1300, 25 L. E. A.—IST. S.) : The mere fact alone that in his practice he did not use drugs in any form whatever as a medicine to cure or heal the many diseases which he professed to successfully treat did not place him, in the eyes of the statute within its meaning, in the position of one not engaged in the practice of medicine. And on page 1301: If he, under the facts of this case, could be held as not coming within the provisions of the statute, then any person unlicensed to practice medicine might hold himself out to the public as a doctor, and treat all classes of diseases without administration of drugs, and not offend against the statute in question. Such a construction would he inconsistent ivith its letter and spirit. The very object or purpose of the statute in question is to protect the sick and suffering and the public at large against the ignorant and unlearned * * *.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21171609_0076.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
