The Lamar register. [volume] (Lamar, Colo.) 1889-1952, 1913-10-08
Two Important Decisions

Following trial before the
board in which he admitted that he
did advertise, the license of NJ. S.
Chenoweth was revoked by the
OoardL He appealed to the district
court and the board was sustaine d.
He appealed to the supreme court
and today that court held that the
Legislature did not have the right
to confer on the board the author
ity to revoke PHYSICIANS license.
The court holds that a physician
secures his license through years
of study and work; that it means a
livelihood to him and that the fact
that he advertises is no reason why
it should be taken away from him;
that it is a property right and that
1t can only be taken away from
him through the courts and not
through any board created by leg
isiative enactment.
The opinion says: Under it's
provisions physician who has
spent many years and vast sums OF
money to qualify himself to practice
medicine, who has spent many
more years in the practice. and
thereby established a reputation and
a practice worth thousands of dol
lars to him annually and yet If he
should publish an advertisement re-
lating to the disease of the sexual
organs. however humane may be
the purpose, and however innocent
of wrong may be the intent. he
must have all this taken from him
and have the consequent fgnominy
and contempt heapod upon him in
addition. And in his trial for the
alleged offense he is to be de-
nied the privilege of a hearing be-
fore a. court of Justice and the
right of trial by jury. He may not
have the same right as is accorded
to ordinary offenders. The stat.
ute provides causing the publication
of an advertisement relating to the
sexual organs shall be an offense
only if by physicians. ANY person
other than a physician mya publish
such advertisements at will. If such
publication tends to injuriously eff
feet the public morals it is not by
reason of the fact that the publica'
ton is caused by a physician. The
effect is precisely the same who
ever may be the publisher.
"Tho Judgment of the trial court
Is reversed an the case remanded
with instructions to enter judgment
directing the state board of medi-
cal examiners to- reverse its in
structions revoking the license of
the uiaintiTi in error to practice
medicine in the state of COLORADO
and to restore to him such rights
and privileges in the premises as
he may have been entitled to prior
to such act of revocation.
In the Grabb case the court
holds practically the same general
rule, which is, that the state board
of medical examiners have no right
to revoke a physicians license for
advertising and obtaining fee on
the representation that manifestly
icurabIe diseases can be cured. In
this case the court holds that the
physician should have his case tried
before a court and not before some
board created by the Legislature.
The court also holds that the word
ing of the law, which reads, "ob-
tanning a fee on the representation
that a manifestly incurable disease
can he permanently cured is indefi-
Mite" 1t holds that under that
wording it would be impossible TO
draw a distinguishing line on what
;s manifestly. an incurable dis-
case because the opinion of skill
ed as we'll as unskilled physicians
differ The two opinions are per
haps the hardest blows the state
hoard of medical examiners has re-
ceived in many a day.