The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-06-26

hitting him toipractice either medicine or sur
gerry. The direction was given because of the
prohibition contained in Chapter 436 of the laws
of 1874, and as no other reason appeared in the
case or the evidence which was given that
would prevent the plaintiff from recovering,
and whether this act contains anything subject
ing him to such disability. is the only substantial
point which requires to be considered in the
case. The statute in terms merely declared it
to be q misdemeanor for any person to practice
medicine or surgery who is not authorized to do
so by a license or diploma from some chartered
school, State board of medical examiners, or med
ical society, or who shall practice under cover of
a medical diploma Illegally obtained and for the
purpose of qualifying a person neither licensed
nor possessing a diploma of the nature of that
mentioned to practice medicine or surgery, it
was provided that he should obtain a certificate
from the censors of a medical society either in
the county, district or State, in which it should
be set forth that lie had been found qualified to
practice all of the branches of the medical art
mentioned in it. 1t appears to be quite manifest
that the object of the Legislature in the enact
ment OF this chapter was only to provide for
regulating the practice of medicine or surgery
as those terms are usually or generally under
stood; and combining them to such significance, it
is evident that they would not include the
occupation of the plaintiff. The practice
OF medicine is a pursuit very generally known
and understood, and so also is that of surgery.
The former includes the application and use of
medicines and drugs for the purpose of curing,
mitigating or alleviating bodily disease, while
the functions of the latter are limited to manual
operations, usually performed by surgical instru-
ments or appliances. 1t was entirely proper for
the Legislature, by means of this chapter, to pre-
scribe the qualifications of the person who
might be intrusted with the performance of
these very important duties. The health and
safety of society could be maintained and pro-
tectod in no other manner. To allow incom-
petent or unqualified persons to administer or
apply medical agents, or to perform surgical Oper-
atoms, would be highly. dangerous to the health
as we'll as the lives of the persons who might be
operated upon; and there is reason to believe
that lasting and serious injuries, as we'll as the
loss of life, have been produced by the improper
use of medical agents and surgical instruments
or appliances. 1t was the purpose and object of
the Legislature. by this act. to prevent a con-
tinuance of deleterious practices of this nature,
and to confine the use of medicine and the
operations of surgery to a class of persons who,
upon examination, should be found competent
and qualified to follow their professional pur-
suits. No such danger could possibly arise from
the treatment to which the plaintiffs occupation
was confined. While it might be no benefit,
it could hardly be possible that it could
that reason no necessity existed for interfering
with this pursuit by any action on the part of
the Legislature. His system Of practice was
rather that of nursing than of either medicine or
surgery. No bodily disability or diseases could
either result from or be aggravated by the ap-
plications made by him, and what he did in no
just sense either constituted the practice of med
icine or surgery. He neither gave nor applied
drugs or medicine, nor used surgical instru-
ments. 1t is my opinion that our statute is sus.
ceptible of the same construction, and that it
does not cover the person embraced by your
question, and that he is not required to procure
a license"
"Must women practicing obstetrics, take out
a iicense?'
mo; women practicing obstetrics are express
ly Exempted from the operation of the statute"