The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1930-02-25
Why Does This Medical Editor
Defend Dope Dealing Doctors?

editor OF the journal Of the American Medical Asgo-
citation is throwing mud two fine medical men, Drs
Cfey and Humber Of San Francisco At the very moment
when 81 the world praisng these great doctors for
their tremendous discovery he smears them with
the suspicion Of quackery and calls the publication Of their
work in the newspapers nothing less than criminal"
Instead Of letting the world that they are TRYING
10 cancer they should have followed the Crtera Of
Geschckter and keep silent for five years. They should
hsye said nothing and hidden from world Of suffering
people the knowledge that they had found great treasure
md brought blessed hope to men and women.
Those two fine doctors Coffey and Humber have done
nothing wrong They have never claimed they had CURE
they have claimed than they have
The newspapers have published nothing that could not be
verified in the laboratories Of Drs Coffey and Humber
But great had broken upon the world and it was
RIGHT to publish that It would have been wrong to
conceal it, though Dr. Morris Fshbein does not agree
Ne the editor Of the Journal Of the American Medical
Association and he does write it's editorials he is
RESPONSIBLE for them and for this sneerng attack on
Drs. Coffey and Humber.
he is the man who thought it his duty fs DAVIS a0o
70 defend dealing doctors and to knife fine pieces
81 narcotic legislation pending before Congress In an
other issue Of his journal he the Porter bills terrible
menace to the medical profession
Distinguished physicians every corner Of the land were
prasng these two bills and urging their passage as effective
weapons in the fight against dope But He scented bu-
HE thought the legislation would impose unfair restrictions
on honest physicians and hamper them the practice of their
profession.
The proposed legislation will require additional paper
work or fees from physicians and will not limit the use or
amount or narcotics physician prescribe in his legitimate
practice But the laws will give the newly created commits
soner Of narcotics power deny license the
license Of narcotic addict doctor dentist pharmacist
who had been convicted Of a narcotic offense
Is it to the medical profession to cancel the
license of who has proved himself unfit to dispense
drugs?
The editorial says person convicted narcotic offense
Regardless of how trivial that Oense may have BEEN may
ever be licensed under the proposed act
But would Dr. Fishben seriously contend that NARCOTIC
conviction is trivial?
He objects the commissioners power cancel narcotic
license and the burden Of proof that he not addict
shall rest the physician But whoever takes the trouble
read the Porter bills will that the burden lies the
missioner He cannot deny cancel license arbitrarily
but must give the physician fair trial in his locality
and the physician appeal the commissioners decision
court Of law.
Where is despotism in that fair and legal procedure7
And where and fardealng in these
amazing attacks of DR. Morris Fishben who fussiy
ethical that he throws mud at two noble doctors who
tong to the sad heart of mankind and attacks honest
legislation which will rid the medical profession Of its dope
dealing betrayers?
Dr. Fshben is terribly afraid that the publicity given the
discoveries Of Drs Coffey and Humber will harm the
medical profession Why isn't he even more afraid Of the
damage dopedealing doctor will do?
anything dscredt the medical profession more than
degraded narcotic peddng doctors do it is the editor
medical journal who assaults the good doctors and defends
the evil ones.