The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1899-08-15

Columbia Is. c. Stately

columbia Is. c. State.l
We gather from The Charlotte News
that the physicians OF that city, in
adopted among other resolutions the
following, copies of which were ordered
to be placed in the hands Of the news
paper reporters:
They Ghe society shall carefully
consider every newspaper notice thai
couples a physician with his profess
sional work, and il they decide that
the wording OF the particular notice is
in bad taste fro1.a an ethical stand
point, or has the appearance OF an ad-
vertisement they shall on the follow
ing day have published in the same
paper this notice:
Editor of the - @ -. We
notice that you published in your coll
umns yesterday an item of semi-medi-
cal news in which you couple. DR..
-'s name with his professional
work. Notices of this kind are impolite,
unethical and have the censure of this
society.
1t is not matter for surprise that our
Charlotte contemporary, commenting
upon the foregoing deliverance, should
remark:
We submit that the medical society
has no more right to say what we shall
or shall not print than the bar associ-
alton, the grocers' union, or any other
association. We haven't time to sub
nit our news items TO the committee of
censors, nor the disposition to do so if
we had. 1t may be proper for this com
mittee to tell a brother physician that
he. is 'impolite' and 'unethical,' but
we imagine they would feel a little out
Of place conveying this information to
the newspapers. Is a Physician a bet
ter judge of what IS .mpClite' and
'unethical' for newspapefs than is the
editor?
ITO sum the whole matter up we
would say hat the society has over
stepped it's bounds. 1t may regulate its
own business but not ours. We will
take pleasure in complying with the
requests of any physician to leave his
name out Of any item, as we have been
in the habit of doing, but we are not
yet ready to leave it to any one to say
what we shall, or shall not publish"
The motive of the society in adopt
ing this resolution may not be as OBJ
vious to newspaper readers as it is to
newspaper men, so We proceed to eX-
plain that medical societies have a
way of forbidding their members to
advertise in the newspapers, holding
this practice to be unethical, and that
thus they force physicians who feel the
need of advertising to resort to the
free ad. counter. The easiest and
most satisfactory way for the physi-
clan to secure a free ad. is to give a
newspaper information Of an accident
or an interesting case of illness,
coupled with the statement that DR..
Blank "set the broken limb" or "op-
Grated on the sufferer or lis attend
ing the patient" 1t is this form of
advertising that is 'impolite" n
"unethical" and demands the "censure
- 49, -oo;o+ry,, Vet 1;Jxo 1r;nlna1 cnoi
cites elsewhere, it will allow no more
straightforward form.
1t is of course quite absurd to at
tempt to cOerce the newspapers re-
specting the publication Of such items.
The calls upon them for the free and
indirect advertising of physicians n
other professional men are at times
enerOuS, but in cases where dOStOrS
furnish actual news of interest, such as
reports of accidents, the reporters are
not disposed to shirk the payment Of
publicity which is asked in compensa-
ton. The advertisement then is not
actually gratuitous; something is offer
ed for it; in effect the transaction is
an Exchange Of courtesies." How
such publications can be ''impolite"
passes our understanding. The Ques-
ton of ethics is another matter.
1t may be "unethical' to secure by
indirection an advertisement which
may not, by the rules of medical So
~cieties, be openly made n frankly
paid fOr-but how is it "unethical' for
a physician to keep his card in a
newspaper? He is permitted, we be-
lieve, to advertise his temporary alb
sence from his field of practice, and
also his return to it. How can it be
right for him to do this and yet wrong
for him to advertise at other times?
He is permitted to keep a conspicuous
sign in front of his office, announcing
his office hours. Why it is unethical
for him to keep a small card stating
precisely the same facts in his news
paper? How can it be right in the
one case and wrong in the other? The
advertising of the charlatan school is
frequently offensive in matter and
manner; but why should decent ad-
vertising by reliable physicians be pro-
hibited?
We would be glad 20 have some
medical society member explain to us
why quackery alone should be allowed
to enjoy the great advantages Of
newspaper advertising; why, through
the employment of the great enginery
of the press, charlantanry should be
enabled to flourish without competition
from sound medical knowledge and
skill. Especially would we like to
know why it is "unethical'-that is,
wrong-for a doctor to advertise when
it is right for other professional men
of equal dignity and character, like
architects and engineers, to use the
newspapers openly n freely in the
advancement of their fortunes.