Editorial February 21, 1901 Issue

Medical Legislation

Editor

In regard to legislation to regulate the practice of medicine, it may be well to observe that the choice of medical attendants and advisers is a matter which each man has a right to make for himself. It hardly comes within the range of subjects to be regulated by law as matters of sanitary or other things affecting public health.

The same principle applies to the theory of medicine to be followed. One person may believe in one theory and another in something very different. The decision of one may be wise and that of the other foolish, or both may be alike unwise. Schools of medicine are matters largely of prejudice and taste. 'As a general proposition, the person consulting a physician of a particular school knows nothing about the merits of the theory on which the physician professes to practise his profession. Sometimes the physician himself knows but little more. So, in respect of the choice of school and theories, it is for most persons a leap in the dark at best.

Open and notorious charlatanism should be prohibited. But a doctor is not necessarily a charlatan because he is not connected with a recognized school of medicine. He may be able to effect cures by use of simple remedies, or, for that matter, by the employment of no medicine whatever. It would be carrying matters to an extreme to say that the work of all such medical or alleged medical men is a public evil which should be prohibited by law.

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Editorial

A Dangerous Measure