Iowa state bystander. [volume] (Des Moines, Iowa) 1894-1916, 1902-02-14
OSTEOPATHS WIN SUIT
STATE EoARD OE-sHEALTH MUST
RECOGNIZE THEM.
Not in Province OF Board to Establish
Requirements of Osteopaths Not
Provided by Statute.

1 MOT IN PROVINCE 81 0SGi1 ~ .SSASs'S'
Requirements of Osteopatts Not
| Provided by Statute.
Des Moines. Feb, 1n.-Judge Holmes
Of the district court. In the case OF G..
l.. Parsons VS.. the state board of med
zeal examiners, handed down an
opinion In which he held that the
| plaintiff was entitled to a writ Of man
| oamus directing the defendant to is
sue a certificate permitting him to
practice osteopathy in this state.
Plaintiff brought the suit as a test
case for the Still college of this city.
to whose graduates the board had re-
fused to issue certificates, claiming
| that it was not UP to the standard re-
uuired by the board.
The court finds that the refusal OF
the board to issue the plaintiff GER
tifcate was based upon the fact that
the board had adopted on December
20, 1898, schedule OF minimum re-
quirements for schools of osteopathy
and that this was in conflict with
chapter 60 of the acts of the Twenty
seventh general assembly regulating
the practice of osteopathy in Iowa, in
asmuch as the general assembly had
therein provided what the require
ments should be and it was only left
for the board to determine whether
the school from which the plaintiff
| holds a diploma complied with the
provisions of this act
The court found further that the re-
fusal Of the board of medical examin-
ers to issue the certificate to plaintiff
! was based upon an investigation which
! had not covered the question OF
whether the school was within the re-
quirements of the statute or not; that
| it was not within the province of the
board to determine more than whether
! tie school was school of good repute
and whether the course of study COM
| prised term of at least twenty
months of four terms of five months
each as provided in the statute and
included the branches of study named
| in the statute.
The court found that those practic-
| ing osteopathy are not within the pro-
visions of the statute relating to the
practice of medicine, surgery and OBJ
stetrics.
The defendant having raised the
question of the constitutionality of
the act referred to on the ground th2t
it permits osteopathic physicians to
practice their profession without hav-
ing pursued the same course of study
as is required of persons attempting
to cure diseases by the administration
of drugs or by the practice of surgery,
and was therefor in violation of sec
ton 6, of article I Of the constitution,
| which provides That all laws of gen
| eral nature shall have uniform opera
! ton and that the general assembly
shall not grant to any citizen or class
of citizens privileges of immunities
which upon the same terms shall not
equally belong to all citizens, the
court finds that every citizen of the
state can, If he so desires, bring him.
self within the provisions of the act
and thus secure the privileges pro
yided therein. and for this reason the
act is held to be not in violation OF
this section of the constitution.
The court finds that the act of the
board in refusing the certificate was
arbitrary and that therefore the writ
!, should issue.