New Britain herald., 1923-05-10
MEDICINAL LIpIOR.

MEDICINAL LIQUOR.
 The decision Of Judge Knox in th'
 United States District court, just ron
 dered,holds that the provision Of th'
 Nolstead law limiting the amount O
 liquor q physician may prescribe, arr
 void. He also granted an Injunction
 preventing interference with th'
 physician who brought the suit in pre-
 scribing what amount Of liquor ma,
 be so prescribed. An appeal will bt
 taken from the decision, and probably
 the injunction will be vacated until
 the United States Supreme court
 passes upon the question in the fall
 The practical result will be, therefore,
 that physicians will continue to be
 limited to prescribing one pint every
 ten days to an individual, until the
 fall at least. If the decision of Judge Knox is affirmed. physician will be able to prescribe any amount of
 liquor he deems necessary for the health Of his patient. If the decision is reversed, he will continue to be limited as he is at present.
 Whether or not liquor is necessary for medicinal purposes is q disputed question. In questionairre sent to 30,000 physicians 51 per cent de- clared it is necessary and 49 per cent said it is not. But the necessity or lack of necessity of liquor for heal ing the sick is not the point in this decision. The point is that congress recognized It's necessity by allowing it to be prescribed by physicians in limited quantity. Congress said, practically, that liquor, being deemed necessary, might be prescribed, and then Congress proceeded to limit the quantity that would be necessary. "A man or woman may need pint of whiskey every ten days, but no man or woman may need any more than that is what Congress said in passing the Volstead Act. Of course Congress might just as well have said "A person may need one spoonful of this certain medicine after each meal, but we. members of congress, declare that no person can possibly need spoonful and half We, members of Congress prescribe the one spoon- full" It is absurd! If liquor is neces- sary or proper for medicinal pnr- poses, no general law, whether in spired by congressman or physicians would meet all cases Each case must be taken care of according to it's needs. And the physician on the case is the best judge, naturally.
 There is no attempt made to be- little the results this decision would | have. Physcians opinions differ as to .the need of liquor at all and so they will differ as to the amount necessary in different cases. The right to prescribe liquor would un- be abused by interruptions physicians. On the other hand those who believe liquor is necessary may be enabled to do great good by hav- ing the freedom to prescribe the amount considered necessary. There Is no attempt made to dispute the statement that liquor In excess is harmful. On the other hand there ire few unprejudiced persons who have not known of instances where he physician and patient, at least, believed that great hardship came rom the limitations imposed by the aw as it stands. Really pitiful re- ,orts have come of cases where physical anguish resulted from in- ,blity of d physician to get liquor n an emergency for his patient.
 This decision holding. in effect, that where Congress las recognized the ,ropriety Of prescribing liquor in ccr- ain cases Congress has no right to Iictatc the amount necessary is emi- lently proper and, it is predicted, sil be affirmed by the Supreme 'ourt Of the United states when if ones before that tribunal