Article February 15, 1900 Issue

Voice of the Press

Regulating the Art Curative

The Hawk-Eye

It is to be hoped the General Assembly will not attempt any further restrictions upon the curing of sick people by any system or process the patients may desire. There ought to be the utmost freedom in this respect consistent with the public welfare. There is a general aquiescence in the belief that it is essential to have regulations by the state governing "the practice of medicine" and the qualifications of doctors who prescribe medicine and practise surgery, and pharmacists who compound drugs. But there the necessity for state regulation ends.

It is debatable whether the state has any right to restrain the practice of faith cures and Christian Science. Neither of these is the "practice of medicine." They have to do with mental processes. The influence of mind over the body is often remarkable. Many people also believe Providence intervenes in response to prayer to heal diseases and work seeming miracles. Whether this belief is well founded or not does not concern the question of individual rights under a republican form of government guaranteeing each citizen the utmost personal liberty consistent with the general welfare.

The place to draw the line between what is and what is not permissible in the conservation of communal interests is—results. It is an anomaly, an anachronism, to punish people for healing the sick. The penalty ought to be imposed for failure to cure, and not for curing; for malpractice, and not for successful practice. To illustrate; the following appears in the despatches:—

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Article

A Day for Gratitude