The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-01-07

science of the preservation of health and
of treating disease for the purpose OF
cure"
Webster: 81. The science which re
lates to the prevention, cure, or allevia-
ton of disease"
Worcester: ''9. That branch of ply
sic which relates to the healing Of disease
(Dunghson.)
'|stormonth: COZ Medicine from L
medicinal, the healing art, medicinal
anything administered Tor the cure or
mitigation of disease; the art Of curing
or alternating disease; the practice and
faculty Of medicine"
In the light of the above We think,
with al due respect to the honorable
Court, that the express. on practice Of
medicine" can be fairly construed to
mean the cure or alienation cf disease
by any method. And in this view We
are sustained by the Sup! eme Court OF
Alabama, which recently, in very aDit
opinion, held that the practice OF este
opathy, ''drugless healing, similar tc
that practiced by Biggs, was ''practicing
medicine"
las to the question of the amendment
creating q monopoly III the interest OF
the regular medical profession, we are
unable to see how it creates monopoly
any more than the requirement OF license
from lawyers, dentists and marine en-
gineers, for example. creates a monopoly
III their interest. If there is any mo-
nopoly it is simply the monopoly neces-
sGrily incident to excellence. How can it
be monopoly when, to quote the words
OF the very ahIest lawyers in the State
| ~ Cd al bo
doors OF the medical profession are open
to every class, race and sex, w.thout re
gard to birth or station in life, upon the
doing of three things; First proving a
good moral character, proving compel
ence, and paying the tax required by the
State"
In conclusion Of the OPINION the Court
says "All the law can do IS to regulate
and safeguard the use OF powerful and
dangerous remedies, like the Lnifo and
drugs, but il cann3t forbid dispensing
with them.
How can it be held that the law for
Lids dispen ,i3s with the knife aud Drugs
simply passes our comprehension. As we
understand he .ciel;e and art Of ncQi-
cine and surE:ry, tie most essential Ealt
O. it is the ability 10 diagnose the disease
by a thorCIon EnHw.edsG Of The history
and symptoms Of disease and Of the most
approved methods of getting at the syn:p-
toms-to tell what the disease Island
thcn to decide in accordance with the
experience of those best fitted to know
whether to use drugs. the knife, massage.
electricity, suggestion, diet, fresh air and
sunshine, change Of scene, etc.-or nothing
all used by the regular physician or
omitted, as he thinks best. If the oh. ecr
oil the law is to safeguard the lives and
health of the people. it is certainly very
Ineffective as construed by our Court
when it permits any person whatsoever,
ba he ever so ignorant or unprincipled,
to assume the care and responsibility
Of a case of disease, no matter how dan
gerous or contagious. It wouldn't make
much difference to the patient and his
friends, We presums, whether he was
Killed by a powerful drug or a misused
knife or by the failure to use at the
critical time sure remedy familiar to
the well-informed physician.
But it is in the contagious and infac
tious diseases that the inability 30 make
the diagnosis would be most disastrous,
not only to the patient himself, as. q. <.
in diphtheria, but to whole communit cs,
~ IalItGe 10 take tue proper SANITARY
precautions.
Our highest legal tribunal has spoken
and we bow to its decision. but we mist
say that to our ordinary lay common
sense it seems mighty queer law, or con
struction of law, that viii require highly
educated physicians to prove their com
potency to assume the care and respon-
s:bility of the sick, and then throw wide
open the doors and invite all the ignorant
and often unprincipled quacks, who mere
II ALLURE drugs and the knife, the two
great remedies for disease, to come in
aud prey upon our people. To paraphra C
he words of one of our old North Caro-
lima judges in his charge TO a jury in
case Of another character: cit may be
good law, gentlemen of the jury, but it
is burned poor equity'-both to the nco-
pie and the medical profession.
AT the end of the opinion it is stated
that two of the justices concur in he
conclusions" from which we are glad to
suppose that they at least 90 not endorse
the method of reaoning or the style Of
presenting the subject"