Evening star., 1926-12-02

There is one difference between
Fra asmus and the United states Su-
preme Court. 1t was stated or Eras-
mus by a famous Scotchman, Dr.
John A. Comrie, NJ. D.. B. Sc. F. X
p lecturer on the history Of medl-
cine. University of Glasgow: Erasmus
nraised the usefulness of physicians
in his day Q500), referred to the hlgn
esteem In which they were helo' 80
that even the pOntifical and 1mperlal
laws submitted to their judgment on
certain points. Fra SINUS claimed TOT
doctors an ability which we do NOT
stress at the present day, Tor ne says
that only very able physicians can
discern whether in persons who are
nossessed the devils are Of the grOsser
kind and liable to medical treatment
or whether the diseas sc has penetrated
into the recesses Of the soul so that
It has no connection Of the body
Now the Supreme Court seems 10
hold the Iaw-whether pontif1cal, I'M
perial or Volsteadian--higher than
even the right of a physician to use
his own judgment in prescribing
spirituous liquor in excess OF one pint
in 10 days to any one patient, no mat
ter how deeply the disease" has pene-
trated the soul.
In the cause Of Dr.) Samuel w.
Lambert VS.. Edward c. Yellowley ct al.
DR.. Lambert set up the claim that
as he was a scientifically educated
M. ID. the law was an ass in at
tempting to tell him how much alco-
hol was good for his patients and
that the court should enjoin said yell
lowley prohibition OFFICIALLY ct al. from
| interfering with his medical practice
The United States Supreme Court
rules:
He sserts that to control the medi-
cal practice in the States is beyond the
power Of the Federal Government. or
course. his belief in the medicinal value
| Of such LIQUOR is not of controlling sig
nifcance; it merely places him in
what was shown to Congress to be the
minor fraction of his profession. Be
| sides, there is no right to practice
| medicine which is not subordinate TO
| the police powers Of the States"
The Supreme Court may recognize
| that civilized man cannot live with
| out cooks" las the poet enunciates).
| but by this decision it relegates the
| medicine man below the cook. for 1t
| uneuuivocally DEGREES that il the
| doctor interferes with the police
power, SO much the worse for the
| doctor. Civilization may exist with
| out him.
| The court adds: when the United
| States exerts any of the powers con-
ferred upon 1t by the Constitution.
| no valid objection can be based upon
| the fact that such exercise may be
attended by some or all of the Incl
dents which attend the exercise by
a State of it's police powers"
High medical authority being In
conflict as to the medicinal value of
| spirituous and vinous liquor as a bev-
| erage. it would, indeed, be strange
| II Congress lacked the power to de-
| termine that the necessities of the
| LIQUOR problem require a limitation
| Of permissible prescriptions, as by
keeping the quantity that may he
| prescribed within limits which will
minimize the template to resort to
| prescriptions as pretexts for obtain
| ing liquor for beverage uses"
| The American Medical Associa ton
| in 1917, when DIR. Hubert Work tnow
Secretary of the Interior) was its
: president, resolved:
Whereas We believe that the use
Of alcohol as a beverage is detri
mental to the human economy; and
/ Whereas it's use in therapeutics
| as d lOIlIC VI StHnuldhI vi oS u
food, has no scientific basis: There
fore be 1t
Resolved, That the use Of alcohol
as a therapeutic agent should be dis
couraged."
For several years prior to that res
i olutiOn, alcohol had been omitted
from the pharmacopOeia-t off1cia
list Of medicines recognized by the
| American Medical Association.
OF course, throughout all the dis
cussions. there We're some advocatet
Of the use OF so-called "stimula nts'
which modern scientists now de
clare are depressa nts and not stimu
lants-but such advocates were {
small minority in the association.
In 1921, the question again cam,