The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-02-01

power 70 refuse or revoke license on the
plea that the physician, otherwise reput-
able and armed with acceptable credentials
OF scientific medical and surgical skill, has
advertised his special skill and knowledge
IN the newspapers. An able physician
might advertise as a specialist and be dis
ciplined by his medical society for his con-
tempt of their canons of professional good
taste and medical etiquette, but medical
ethics, fortunately for the world, are not
legal ethics, and under the law such ply
sician as we have described can not be
legally subjected to any disabilities or
penalties because he adyerrises that he
would not suffer if he did not advertise.
Under the Law a physician can advertise
as safely as q merchant, so long
as his advertisement does not convict
him Of an attempt to get money under
false pretenses by playing the part OF
quack who promises to cure the incurable,
or Of a covert attempt to conduct an i'm
moral business under the name and sign
Of a physician.
OF course the law does not intend that
the term .'unprofessional" conduct should
be defined as mere medical good taste or
etiquette, for in a free country no man
can be prohibited from plying his voca-
ton, because he advertises his business
or refuses TO advertise it, 80 that in the
Oregon case the medical board undoubtedly
acted without legal justification. The Law
no more authorizes the medical board 10
arbitrarily discipline a doctor, because
he advertises and they do not, than
il authorizes them to revoke his
license, IL the medical board
decided it was "unprofessionap' for doc
tor to wear blue rather than green goggles,
or to take his hat of if he was in an eleva-
tor and ladies were present. Assuming
that the Washington statute is sound
constitutional enactment, we believe any
doctor deprived of his license can compel
its restoration If no other proof of unpro-
fessional conduct was presented save that
the doctor had legitimately advertised his
special skill and knowledge.
II the law is constitutional DR.. Reeves
was unjustly deprived Of his license, IN
less the medical board can satisfy the
money under false pretenses by advertis-
ing to cure the incurable. to perform the
impossible or to pursue an immoral bust
ness. But assuming that DR.. Reeves
was guilty of an attempt through adver-
Using. to get money under false pretenses,
II =
tional, because it's provisions do not apply
to those who were practising medicine or
surgery within the state at the time of its
passage The quacks, irregular and adver-
Using physicians who were resident in
Washington when the act was passed are
not subject TO any of the pains and penal
ties of the act. These resident" quacks,
irregular and advertising" physicians
were not required to produce a
diploma, TO submit to examina-
ton, but were permitted to advertise
their business without let or hindrance.
The state medical board in Oregon and
Washington cannot deal with these "resi-
dent" advertising physicians because they
were specially exempted from its provis-
ions and this very exemption is fatal to
the law.
The Washington statute 10 substantially
the same in its provisions as the statute
of New Hampshire, which the supreme
court of that state in 1889 adjudged to be
unconstitutional. In the New Hamp-
shire case dentist indicted for practicing
ovft tol
demurred to the indictment upon the
ground that the statute which required
him TO possess such a degree or
license as a prerequisite to practice
was unconstitutional and void. This
New Hampshire statute provided that it
'shall not be lawful for any person to
practice dentistry unless he has received
dental degree from some college, uni
versity or medical school authorized to
confer the same, or license from the
New Hampshire Dental Society. Where
the license is granted upon examination, S.
must be paid for it; where it is granted
upon the presentation of diploma, ST."
The provisions of the act, however, do not
apply Ito persons who have resided and
practiced their profession in the town or
city Of their present residence during all
the time since January l, 1875"
The defendant insisted that this dis
elimination was repugnant to the first
section of the fourteenth amendment to
the constitution of the United States,
which provides that no state shall deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws"
The supreme court of New Hampshire
ruled the statute as unconstitutional be-
cause the law does not operate equally
upon all persons engaged in the same oc-
cupation.
The right of the legislature to exclude
unit persons from the practice of medi-
cine, surgery and dentistry must be eIer-
cised in conformity with the constitutional
requirement that such restrictions must
operate equally upon all persons pursuing
the same business or profession under the
same circumstances, and discrimination,
founded upon the accidental circumstance
Of residence, is within the prohibition of
-