Article August 25, 1917 Issue

In the California school nurse and doctor campaign a...

Cedar Rapids (lowa) Republican

In the California school nurse and doctor campaign a doctor has coined a phrase that will serve as a slogan in many similar campaigns. It is this: "It is the school that is public, not the child." Do you eatch the meaning of that? its significance? The child is not the property of the public. It cannot be disposed of at will. It cannot be examined and treated without the consent of the parents or the guardians. In sending the child to school the parents or guardians have not surrendered any rights in that child. They have not given it entirely to the public for this or that faddist to do with as he pleases.

The doctor who coined that phrase is the president of the board of education at Long Beach, near Los Angeles. The campaign in which he made this statement is one in opposition to the legislation that is now pending at Sacramento, under which it is proposed to install public doctors and nurses in all the schools of the state. This legislation proposes "physical education for both sexes" and "daily inspection of all pupils." The children are to be at the mercy of the nurses and the doctors paid by public public moneys. If such employees, such nurses and doctors, were always efficient and even intelligent, it might not be so bad. But think of what kind of people would often be elected to office or selected under ordinary conditions. Are the parents to have no more rights over their own children? Are these rights to be surrendered to political office holders in the schools?

This doctor says that at Long Beach they had at one time a "high salaried school physician," and the attendance at the schools fell off rapidly, many parents, all parents of delicacy, refusing to submit their children to the attentions of a physician, except a physician of their own choosing. When the doctor was abolished, as he was, the school attendance immediately increased again. There are many things that may properly be done through the schools for the improvement of the health of the children. But these ultra modern ideas of doing with children what nurses and doctors may see fit, without the knowledge of the parents, is a preposterous and unwarrented invasion of the personal rights and liberties of the people. It is not every nurse or every doctor that people want fooling around their children. And as for these public lectures on health to mere children, it is easily seen that these may be overdone. It is better for children ot hear less about sickness and disease and more about health and happiness.

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Editorial

Put Yourselves to the Proof