| OCR Text |
Show CHIROPRAGTOR LOSES BUT WILL APPEAL 10 HER COURT B A decision which will compel all H chiropractors and followers of siml- H lar schools of healing to pass the H examinations of the state board of K medical examiners or go out of busi- H i ness in the state was handed down H , by the state supreme court yesterday, i says the Tribune, i Tho state board of medical exam- Hv iners and members of tho accepted V schools of medicine regard the decl- K sion as a great victory and one which Hl settles definitely and finally the con- 1 troversy over the activities of tho H chiropractors that has been going on B for several years. 1 The decision of the supreme court H Is not an indictment of the chiroprac- H tic and allied schools of healing, but 1 . merely stipulates that such schools H come under the state law regulating BBBH me practice ol medicine nun mux in H order to practice their calling in Utah . the chiropractors must pass the same i examination required of other practi- l Many Must Retire. H As the state law requires college H courses in certain stipulated subjects, H and as it is asserted that a great ma- H jority of the chiropractors never have H' had college educations to the extent H of and in the subjects named in the H statutes, they will have to go out of Hj business. Hj Backed by the supremo court do- H cision, tho state board of medical ex- H' aminors will at once proceed against Hj the forty or fifty chiropractors and H: similar practitioners now operating in Hf the state, perhaps twenty of whom Hjj are in Salt Lake City. The board H will cause the arrest of these prac- H1 tllioners on the charge of practicing H medicine without a license. Pending Hi the decision of the test cases, the Hi board did not press action aginast LUC UUUUpiilUlUlA. H Decision by Straup. H Chief Justice D. N. Straup wrote the i decision of the supreme court and it fl' was concurred in by Justice J. E. ! Prick and William McCarty. It was H , In the case of the state board of 1 medical examiners against F. J. Free- i nor. In the decision Chief Justice H ! Straup said: H "The law is not concerned with the Hn question of whether chiropractic is as H , good as or better than other systems B of treatment. It is concerned with H the question that before anyone shall H undertake, no matter by what system, to diagnose, treat, operate upon, or K prescribe or advise for, any physi- K cal or mental ailment or condition of H another for a fee or other considera- 1 tion, he shall possess the learning H and skill required by the statute and H produce a degree or diploma from a H college meeting tho requirements enu- H merated in the statute, and success- V1 fully pass an examination before th& Hj board showing his competency. . "When he does that, then he can H j practice whatever system he may con- H slder the most efficacious, or do that i in a given case which he thinks will H produce the best result. Until he does H that he cannot practice at all, unless H i he comes within the exception of the H statute, "those who heal only by spir- H itual means, without pretending to H have any knowledge of the science Hj of medicine," an exception put in the Hl statute to permit treatment by Chris- Hjj tian Science or other spiritual Hf means." Hi "Practicing medicine" is defined as H follows by the state law: H "Any person shall be regarded as H' practicing medicine within the mean- H Ing of this title who shall diagnose, H treat, operate upon or prescribe or ad- H vise for any physical or mental ail- H j ment or any abnormal, mental or phy- H sical condition of another after hav- H ing received or with Intent to receive H therefor, either directly or indirectly, H any fee, gift, compensation or other H pecuniary benefit, reward or consid- H e ration; or shall hold himself out by H ' means of signs, cards, advertisements H or otherwise as a physician and sur- H geon Hj Study Is Required. H Provision is also made in the law H that the board of medical examiners H shall license all practitioners, who H must pass the examination provided. H ' Requirements of a practitioner In- M i elude 3500 hours of study at any legal- H ly chartered medical school and a di- H ploma showing that the applicant has H studied and passed in histology, anat- H j omy, physiology, chemistry, toxlcol- i ogy and a considerable list of other i subjects. The allopathic, homeopathic and oseopathic practitioners all had to fulfill theso requirements and they have contended that all other schools of healing should be submitted to the same tests. Frcenor attended the Davenport, la., college of chiropractics, but concedod that ho had not had the schooling prescribed in the medical law. It was his contention that he was not a medical med-ical practitioner and that ho and hie school of healing did not come under tho provisions of the act. The supreme su-preme court holds otherwise. a Decision Is Lengthy. The supremo court's decision is a lengthy one, Justice Straup going Into the testimony introduced when Frco-nor's Frco-nor's case was before the district court in Ogden. It might bo stated, parenthetically, that chiropractics was described in tho case as nn "adjustment" "adjust-ment" of tho Bplnal vertebrae. In concurring In the opinion of the chief justice, Justice Frick apponded somo comment on the case. "It Is seldom," sel-dom," he said, "that the wisdom, utility util-ity and the necessity of a statute can be so forcibly and irrefutably demonstrated demon-strated in an opinion as 1b the case in the preceding opinion. Here is a so-called doctor who, without hesitation, hesita-tion, informs us in the first quarter of tho twentieth century that "In case or aipnuiena l woum assume mai that waB caused primarily by some defect with the nerve leading from tho vertebrae." Instead of arresting (he deadly toxins the doctor would merely "palpate" the spine and in that way attempt a cure. At tho same time tho decision in the Freonor case was transmitted, the supreme court rendered a decision in a similar case, tho board of examiners examin-ers had against P. B. Erickson, a Salt Lake chiropractor. Instead of seeking an Injunction, the board had Erickson arrested on a charge of practicing prac-ticing medicine without a license. Like Freenor, he appealed to the supreme su-preme court. The supreme court upheld up-held the medical board in the Erickson Erick-son case on the same grounds as In the Freenor case. F. J. Freenor gave out a public statement last night declaring that he would continue to practice, and appeal the case to the supreme court of the United States, if necessary. |
