The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-12-03

Either the italicized words are
superfluous or they contain an impli-
cation that II the treatment, in the
courts opinion, had been capable of
causing injury like improper medical
treatment, the judges would have
classified it in the same category.
OTHER DEFINITIONS.
In Eastman VS.. State 40 N. Il. go,
an Indiana case the court said, on the
other hand 1T is the purpose of the
statute to prevent persons who do not
possess the necessary qualifications to
practice medicine or surgery from In
hicting injury upon the citizens by
undertaking to treat diseases, wounds
and injuries And again THE state
has an interest i'm the life and health
| Of all its citizens, and the law under
| examination was framed, not to be-
stow faVors upon particular profess
| sion, but to discharge one Of the high
| est duties of the state-that Of pro-
tecting it's citizens from injury and
harm" In People W. Phippin (7O Mich
| 81, the defendant was held to have
| practised medicine. on proof that he
held himself out as "Dr. w. w. Phip-
| pin, magnetic healer" had attempted
10 cure the sick. and in the case of "A
| child's death had certified the cause
| Ia be "Canker. sore mouth. Duration
! Of disease: June to July 20, 1885," In
! Bibber vs. Simpson (lg Maine lSD. a
| rlairvOyant who gave remedies was
| said to he practising medicine. So also
in Nelson W.. Harrington t72 Wis. 59D.
| And in New York. DE Leon. who pre-
scribed for child, drawing its horo-
! scope and giving some rhubarb, was
convicted of Illegal practice of medi-
| cine. The administration Of electricity
| has also been held 10 constitute medi-
| cal practice Dawson vs. Bohman ta7
Mo. App. 576.
The Ohio statute provides that:
ANY person shall be- regarded as praC-
| tising medicine or surgery. within the
meaning of this act, who shall append
the letters NJ II. ur NIB. to his name,
or for fee prescribe. direct, or recom-
| mend for the use of any person any
| drug or medicine or other agency for
! the treatment. cure, or relief of any
| wound. fracture. or bodily injury, in
trinity. or disease" That seems very
broad but I'm the case of Eastman vs,
State C6 Ohio Dec. 1860. it was held in
January. 1897, that graduate Of the
school of osteOpathy Of Krkville,
! Mo-" was not practising medicine by
| kneading and manipulations. using
only his hands and no medicines. The
court cited Smith vs.. Lane, and held
that the words "auy other agency
| were too vague and We're limited by
| the particular words drug or med-
cine"
The New York statute does not de-
| fine medical practice. Such a dciini-
| tion was framed i'm the draft of the
act Of 1887. but stricken out because a
| certain senator. who died shortly
| aftrrward. declared that 1t would in
| Clude an eccentric healer who had
saved him from the grave. The deiin-
| itiOn was yielded to save the bill.
The Nebraska medical act defines as
a practitioner, any one "who shall
operate ON. or profess 10 heal OF pres
! cribe for. ar otherwise treat any ply
sical ur mental ailment of another
FAITH CURE At ISSUE.
Under this statute arose, in 1894. the
case of State vs.. Buswell C40 Neb. 1881.
The defendant. charged with unlawful
practice of medicine, claimed to be Il
Christian Scientist. graduated from
the Metaphysical college of Mrs. Mary
Il. q. Eddy, of Boston. Defendant
him in cases Of rheumatism, rattle
snake bite, pneumonia, and scarlet
fever--the last in the case of a child,
four years old. He testified that in
eighteen months he had treated about
one hundred persons. Of whom only
two had died. The accuracy of his
diagnosis WAS not in issue. He testi-
fled that the books of the Chris
tian Science church are the Bible and
Mrs Eddy's work "SCienCr and
Health" lie denied that in a medical
sense he treated physical or mental
ailments, saying: Il understand with
Gods laws. and not mortal mans
QucGtioned as to the privilege Of pa
ticnts or parents To call in medical
aid. he said: we believe that every
one has a right to express their wish
and 1t is always understood that If
! they prefer some other treatment, OT
| some other mode. or some one else &c
aid them, ii is their privilege. We al
ways do that II is taught in our
text books. We never give any medi,
cine: that is entirely contrary to the
teaching of Christian Science" And
his counsel said: THE defendant. and
those of the same faith with him, be.
lieVe as a matter Of conscience that
the giving of medicine is a sin; that II
is placing faith in the power of ma
terial things, which belongs alone to
Omnipotencc. To the Christian Scien'
tist, il is as much a violation of the
laws of God To take drugs for the al
deviation of suffering or the cure oI
disease, as for Methodist clergyman
TO take the name of his God i'm vain Il
relieve his overwrought feelings"
Being asked if he took pay from hi:
patients, he said: "As rule | dc
not. We tell them we leave the ques
ton to them and God. Jesus
says the lahorer is worthy of his meat
and we expect that those whom We
spend our lives for to remunerate Us
for it, If they are not willing t.
part with the sacrifice themselves il
is not expected that those should real
the benefit" Considering that defend
ant described his treatment as one o.
Of prayer; this intimation that the an
swer to prayer would be contingent
on the payment of the scientists fee
apparently seemed rather blaSphemou!
to the court, who very aptly cited two
cases from one of the sciences text
books, the Bible-the former, that O
Simon the sorcerer reported i'm Acts
viii. 1928, to whom Peter said, THY
money perish with thee, because thol
hast thought that the gift of God may
be purchased with money" the seconC
that of Gehazi g Kings, Y:20-2O, ser
want of Elisha, who finding that hii
master had gratuitously cured of lep
rosy Naaman, the rich Syrian, thus es
tablishing a precedent for dispensarN
abuses, remarked, "as the Lord livetf
] will run after him, and take some