Article March 24, 1923 Issue

I think it is generally regarded that, in actual practice...

Lester B. McCoun, Committee on Publication for the State of Nebraska,—Lincoln

State Journal

I think it is generally regarded that, in actual practice to-day under the theory of rule by the majority, state medicine means the control of healing practice by the practitioners of the so-called "regular" or "standard" school. It is, therefore, interesting to note the opinion of these practitioners, as expressed in a resolution adopted at the 1922 annual session of the American Medical Association, namely: "The American Medical Association hereby declares its opposition to all forms of 'state medicine,' because of the ultimate harm that would come thereby to the public weal through such form of medical practice." The resolution then makes certain exceptions for army, navy, or public health service activities, but it includes a ray of light for lovers of medical freedom.

Christian Scientists have long opposed any system of state medicine or compulsory health education according to the theories of any particular system of healing. They feel that state medicine is a departure from the fundamental laws of democratic government. They think these laws have been disregarded, and the rights of minorities overlooked, whenever theories of any particular system of healing have been permitted to stand as the opinion of the state.

In a speech delivered in New York city in 1915, Hon. Elihu Root explains forms of government in such a manner as to show clearly that state medicine is entirely autocratic and has no place in a democracy. These are his words: "There are but two underlying theories of man in the social relation to the state: One is the theories of the ancient republics, under which the state is the starting point from which all rights are deduced and the individual holds rights only as a member of the state. This was the theory of Greece, and Rome, and the Italian Republic. The other is the theory of the Great Charter, the theory of the Habeas Corpus Act, of the Statute of Treasons, of the Petition of Rights, of the Bill of Rights, of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, of the Declaration of Independence of the American Republic, that the individual has inalienable rights, of which no government may deprive him, but to secure which all government exists."

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

I think it is generally regarded that, in actual practice...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access