New Britain herald., 1923-07-07
DRY LAW Void in
some INSTANCES
Judge Rules Oh Case Limiting
Doctors Prescriptions

! BY The Associated Press.
Helena, Mont. July 7.-Congress
once having said that alcohol can be
used for medical purposes, cannot
now dictate to the physician as to
the number of whisky prescriptions
he shall write or the quantity he
shall prescribe, Federal Judge George
NJ. Bourquin held yesterday
In his decision, which said part
of the prohibition act was unconsti-
tutional, Judge Bourquin invalidated
the prosecution of DIR. j. B. Freud
of Butte, who 1t was charged issued
more than 100 prescriptions within
a ninety-day period and prescribed
more than one-half pint of alcohol
to one patient in ten days.
q'he decision, In substance, held
that Congress could not substitute its
Judgment for that Of the physician,
ruling similarly to Federal Judge
Knox of New York, who on May 8
last granted an order restraining pro-
hibtion authorities from interfering
with the practice of DR.. Samuel w.
Lambert with respect to the amount
of whisky which might be pre-
scribed to one patient.
Judge Bourquin's ruling, however
goes further and holds that the por-
ton of the Volstead act which seeks
to limit the number of prescriptions
is invalid, as well as that portion
limiting the quantity prescribed, The
invalid section with reference to the
numebr Oh prescriptions Is nothing
but an arbitrary restriction upon the
number of patients a physician" shall
treat In ordinary course of circum-
stances, or Is an unreasonable man
date to malpractice in respect to
them" read the courts decision.
Continuing, the court said that If
therapeutics were an exact science
and diseases and their courses of I'M
available diagnosis and patients were
an constituted alike" the provision
arbitrarily fixing the amount of al
cohol which could be prescribed
might be valid, but since in respect
to all these factors the truth is
otherwise, every patient presenting to
the physician different problem for
solution, this provision If the statute
is invalid"
The decision follows:
1T may be that even as legislation
for reasons of health can compel vac
cination, 1t might in like behalf extend
prohibition of alcohol for therapeutic
uses. But so long as legislation toIer-
ates or sanctions such use of alcohol,
the duty and Judgment of the physi-
clan, the necessity and welfare of the
patient and the right of BOTH cannot
be subjected to arbitrary and unrea-
sonabe legislative interference like
the statutory provision aforesaid.
The physician with unrestricted
power to begin a course of treatment
must have like power to finish it,
Otherwise there may be dangers great
or than involved by denial by any
power for the latter might be sup
piled by substitutes. These statutory
provisions to restrain the judgment of
physicians in the exercise OF power to
prescribe alcohol, which deprive physi-
clans and patients of liberty without |
due process Of law within the meaning |
of the fifth amendment, are unconsti-
tutional."
The court held that the bureau OF
revenue had the power
its regulations to cope with
abuse of the use of alcohol without at
tempting to dictate to the physician |
in the treatment of cases where al
cohol was prescribed.