New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-02-07
TOPICS IN ALBANY.
TIE NEW MEDICAL CODE SUSTAINED.


ACTION OF THE STATE MEDICAL socIETY-sPEEcHEs
BY DRs. AGNEw. RoosA SOLUBLE AND OTHERS.
lpY TELEGRAPH 70 THE TRIBUNE.i
AInASy. Feb Gas was expected, the code
of ethics permitting allopathic physicians to hold
consultations with the physicians Of other schools,
was about the sole subject of discussion, at
the annual meeting of the Medical Society of
the State of New-YOrk to-day. 1t formed the sub
stance OF President Jewett's address and was con-
SANITY brought to the attention Of the society by
letters from county societies protesting against the
action of the State Society last year in adopn9 the
new code. Finally it was formally brought before
the society by DR.. c. r. Agnew, OF New-1ork'
who stated that when he presented LIS
credentials as delegate
American Medical Association last summer he had
been refused admittance because oil the auop'on u
the new code.
DR.. r. Souibb. of Brooklyn, an opponent OF the
code offered the following resolution
Resortd That al the action taken the annual meet
ipe of 1881 in regard 10 chang g ne va sucb
repealed leaving tue coue " s'' 80 " w.
oi,a ed nv inc Nominating Commit ee OF tie society
and be appointed by tie society TO review the SQue
Of 1881 any changes the code that may be deemed adj
PaSoIred That the report of this committee be dis
ruSsed the meeting OF 1884 and be then laid over Tor
final action at the meeting OF 1889.
tioDs. DIR. Squibb leading those who favored the
resolutions, and DR.. D. B. st. John Reosa and DR..
C. r. Agnew those who opposed them. DIR. Squbb
argued that the new Code had been adopted with
out due notice to the allopathic physicians of the
State that the American Medical Association ought
to have been consulted; that one-fourth OF
the medical societies of the State disapproyed the
code; and that the maintenance of the code viz
tualy compelled the New-York Medical Society to
secede from the American Association
Dr. Roosa replied that the opponents of the
new Code used arguments worthy of
the seventeenth century, and that the
consent of the American Association was not neces
sary for the adoption of the code. He continued
follows: The code will emancipate the medical
profession 1t is assumed that, II we continue this
code in force will Immediately enter INTO broth
ery rela ions with the homGopathsts or eclectlcs.
1t is not We shall not "sk them Tor
assistance, but if any poor uninstrncted human
being wants assistance we want the rgh 10 give IT,
We are not going to surrender to b0m9opatnis's.
This is not question of drugs: II Is quesiio "f
ethics. The wlOle American educa ed pubic mas
been laughing this restricted trade union code"
DIR. c.. X. Agnew argued that in adopting the new
code the society had merely put itself IN accord
with the laws of the State which clearly recognized
the existence Of other classes OF practitioners OF
medicine I" The man. he said, whom the state
has pronounced TO be legally constitutes
practitioner you cannot disfranchlse Repeal
the new code, and you put tins society
in opposition to the policy of the State and yon at
Tempt o coerce this society into an ATTITUDE "hch
no thinking man outside our profession wOuH
take" -, ,
made by Dr. Rochester of Buffalo; Dr. Dnuif r, or
Syracuse; and DIR. Lyman, of Troy and speeches
against them were made by d. Mcleod, OF New
York; DIR. W. II. X. Hopkins, of Buffalo; ana Df.
Vanderpoel. of New-YoTk. The resolutions were
defeated by vote of 80 to 100. The new code
thus stands