The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-12-04
TOPEKA STATE JOURNAL
Information Bureau
FREDERIC J. HAsKN. Direcssr.
wAshingtor, ID. O.
DOCTORS ATTACK VoLSTEAD
LAW

are after the Volstead law insofar 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 restrict physicians to
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 final
decision.
Preliminary to this action the New
York physicians organized the Asso-
citation for the Protection of Consti-
tutional Rights, and it is stated that
similar bodies viii 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
Volstead law and that they purpose a
campaign that will at Ieast-be instruc
tive to the general public, even if it
does not result in a modification of
the statute which they find obnox-
iOuS-
new association and any lay organiZa-
ton or any movement that Is opposed
to prohibition. In fact, 1t is said that
some of the doctors are themselves
ardent prohioitionists. 1t happens,
however, that they are equally ardent
in opposition to any governmental in
reference with their methods of prac-
ticing therapeutics. That is something
that congress Is not supposed to know
anything about
In commenting upon the resort to
the courts one of the officers of the
association 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-
liberately violated a law which they
look upon as stupid and unjust.
The law says that a physician may
not prescribe more than a pint of
whisky or brandy for a patient within
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 physician is a competent
judge of what that requirement may
be.
Lawmakers PractIced Medicine.
When congress passed the Volstead
act the lawmakers were undertaking
to practice medicine, according to the
doctors. and were assuming to know
more about what a patient needs than
his physician. This is regarded by
them as the vull- cradle feature of the
law ans the one which the courts will
not uphold.
The method of presenting the case
so as to insure a reasonably speedy
judicial determination was simple.
Upon petition of attorneys represent
ing DIR. Samuel W. Lambert, Dean
Emeritus of the College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Columbia university,
subpoepas were issued by the clerk of
the United States district court re-
quiring Edward c. Yellowley, acting
prohibition director for New York;
David H. Blair, commissioner of in
ternal revenue, and William Hayward,
United States attorney for that dis
trict, to appear before the court and
show cause why the provisions of laws
enacted u--de- the Eighteenth amend
ment insofar as they relate to physi-
clans in the practice of medicine
should not be judicially declared in
operative.
Doctor Lambert is the president of
the new organization formed by the
doctors, and his associate officials are
Dr. James F. McKernon, vice prest-
dent; DR.. Warren Coleman, secretary;
Dr. Frederic E. Sondern, treasurer,
and Drs. Nathan E. Brill. William K.
Draper, Charles L. Dana, F. IT. Gorton,
and ]. Bentley Squier, executive COM
mitteeman.
Dignity and importance are claimed
for the movement on the strength of
the personnel of the association. Its
members are men mature in judg-
ment and experience, and all are said
to be men of national and interna-
tional reputation. They-are estab-
iished in the hospitals and medical
schools of New York and all are of
middle age or older.
That deliberation has characterized
the movement is attested by the fact
that it was. started fully Is months
ago. when eight prominent physicians
a communication to the
members of thSr profession. Disclaim-
ing any intention of initiating a propa-
ganda for or against Prohibition, andI
declaring it to be immaterial whether
a physician does or does not believe
in prohibition, they asserted that the
point at issue the right of the physi-
clan to select his remedies and decide
what doses of those remedies each
patient should have.
law Denies This Right
1.-The Volstead act denies this right"
said the address. While recognizing
the medicinal value of alcohol. it says
to the physician. Thou shalt not give
more than a pint of whisky or brandy
to any patient within ten days. Fur
Their than this. statements given by
persons interested in promoting SINH
lar legislation contain the threat TO
prohibit altogether the medicinal use
of alcohol.
While there is a difference of opin-
ion among the physicians of the coun-
try with respect to the therapeutic
having faith in it is sufficiently large
to receive attention.
1.-The medicinal restrictions of the
Volstead act constitute an indictment
of the integrity of the whole medical
profession. in that it is assumed that
many of its members. unless re-
strained by law. will pander for gain to
the peoples desire for drink.
Further. it should be pointed out
that the Volstead act contains the
most drastic legislation affecting tho
medical profession yet enacted. a
physician becomes a criminal by the
mere fact of writing prescription for
more than a pint of whisky for one
patient within ten days, and so far as
the revocation of his permit is con- |
cerned. is denied his constitutional
right of trial by jury.
THE precedent established by the |
Nnlsfaad sfrt- in restricting medical |