Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-12-04

Washington, ID. c., Dec. doctors
are after the Volstead law in so for
as the prohibition enforcement act in
terferes with or regulates the practice
of medicine. Suit has been brought
in the United States district court IN
New York to annul the provisions OF
the law that restricts physicians to q
limited amount of whisky or other al.
coholic beverages in the treatment OF
sick persons, and it is announced that
the case will be carried to the supreme
court of the United States for a final
decision.
Preliminary to this action the New
York physicians organized the Asso-
citation for the Protection of Consti-
t%utional Rights, and it is stated that
similar bodies will be formed in other
cities and states to cooperate in the
fight. The gentlemen of the medical
profession say they have been silent
too long under the injustices Of the
Nolstead law and that they purpose a
campaign that will at least be i%nstruc-
tive to the general public even if it
does not result in a modification of the
statute which they find obnoxious.
There is no connection between this
new association and any lay organiZa-
ton or any movement that is opposed
| to prohibition. In fact, it is said that
some of the doctors are themselves ar
dent prohibitionists. 1t happens, how
ever, that they are equally ardent in
opposition to any governmental inter
ference with their methods of practic-
ing therapeutics. That is something
that congress is not supposed to know
anything about.
In commenting up the resort to the
courts one of the officers of the as
ISOLATION said that there was moth
ing hasty or ill-considered about it.
They had pondered over the problem
for months with growing irritation, for
they had witnessed needless suffering
and threatened death or else had de
1iberately violated Il law which they
look upon as stupid and unjust.
The law says that n physician may
not prescribe more than q pint of
whisky or brandy for Il patient with
in a ten-day period. The doctors claim
the right TO prescribe as much more in
that period as their Judgment and
knowledge of medicine tells them the
patient requires, and they contend
that no one but q physician is a COM
petent Judge Of what that requirement
may be.
Lawmakers Practiced Medicine.
When congress passed the Nolstead
act the lawmakers were undertaking
to practice medicine. according to the
doctors. and were assuming to know
more about what Il patient needs than
his physician. This is regarded by
them as the vulnerable feature Of the
law and the one which the courts will
not uphold.
The method Of presenting the case
so as to insure a reasonably speedy jul
diciaI determination was simple. Upon
petition of attorneys representing DR..
Samuel w. Lambert, dean emeritus of
the College of Physicians and Surgeons
Of Columbia university, subpurnas
were issued by the clerk Of the United
States district court requiring Edward
G. Iellowley, acting prohibition direct
or for New York; David II. Blair, com
missioner of internal revenue and
William Hayward. United States at
torney for that district, to appear be-
fore the court and show cause why the
provisions of laws enacted under the
Eighteenth amendment in so far as
they relate TO physicians in the prac-
tice of medicine should not be Judlc-
tally declared imperative.
DIR. Lambert is the president of the
new organization formed by the
doctors. and his associate officials are
DR.. James I. McKernon. vice presi-
dent; DIR, Warren Coleman, secretary
DR.. Frederic Il. Sondern, treasurer,
and Drs. Nathan f. Brill, William X
Draper, Charles l.. Dana. L. T. Cor,
ton and j. Bentley Squier, executive
committeeman.
Dignity and Importance are claimed
for the movement on the strength Of
the personnel Of the association. Its
members are men mature in judgment
and experience. aud All are said to bt