A consideration of the legal aspects of chiropractic : and more particularly of the question whether or not chiropractic is included within the terms of the Michigan Medical Act-Act. No. 237, Public Laws of 1899, as amended-and is subject to the provisions of that act. Brief, argument and authorities for the affirmative / by Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Counsel for American Medical Association.

  • Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Chicago.
Date:
[1911]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A consideration of the legal aspects of chiropractic : and more particularly of the question whether or not chiropractic is included within the terms of the Michigan Medical Act-Act. No. 237, Public Laws of 1899, as amended-and is subject to the provisions of that act. Brief, argument and authorities for the affirmative / by Loesch, Scofield & Loesch, Counsel for American Medical Association. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

    44/94 (page 36)
    We believe that the few courts that have held, in construing similar statutes, that systems like osteopathy, for instance, are not included under practice of medicine or practice of medicine or surgery,^^ have done so because they confused the two meanings of medicine. They knew that in one sense it meant a science or art, and also that the word in another sense had something to do with drugs. Failing to define these two meanings sharply, they proceeded on the theory that medicine meant the science or art of healing by means of drugs. And, likewise, they speak of surgery as if it depended wholly on the knife and not at all on manual operation. Thus, in State v. McKnight (1902), 131 ISF. C, 717; 43 S. E., 580; 59 L. E. A., 187, the Supreme Court of North Carolina says in an opinion in which osteopathy was under consideration: Certainly a statute requiring examination and license 'before beginning the practice of medicine or surgery' neither .regulates nor forbids any mode of treatment which abso- lutely excludes medicines and surgery from its pathology. And earlier in its opinion: The aim of medical science, which is now probably the most progressive of all the professions, is simply to 'assist nature.' Osteopathy proposes to do that by other methods than by the use of medicines or the surgeon's hnife. Other courts of high authority, however, have recognized the distinction and refused to give the words practice of medicine so narrow a construction; and have held that they included various systems of treatments for curing or preventing disease Avithout drugs, such as osteopathy. In Bragg v. State (1902), 134 Ala., 165; 58 L. E. A., 925; 35 S., 767, the Alabama Supreme Court had to decide whether the practice of osteopathy was the practice of medicine in any of its branches or departments. The contention of the defendant was that it was not, because in the practice of osteopathy no drugs or other medicinal substances are adminstered or applied, internally or externally, nor the knife used in the treatment of diseases. The court, however, held that it was included in the meaning of the words of the statute. In its opinion, the court makes its Avork unnecessarily difficult, it seems to us, by accepting as true the defendant's assertion that the words as commonly used and popularly understood carried with them the essential idea of the prescribing of remedial sub- stances or drugs. As we have attempted to show, this is not the case. Nevertheless, the Alabama Supreme Court accepts this