Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1Witthaus, R. A. (Rudolph August)
Science
Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1
Witthaus, R. A. (Rudolph August)
Medical jurisprudence; Poisons; Toxicology
and the unanimity with which they have resisted the introduction of
valuable discoveries. They still continue to disagree in respect to the
treatment of diseases as old as the human race; and at the present day,
when great advances have been made in all departments of knowledge, a
radical and fundamental difference divides the allopathist from the
followers of Hahnemann, to say nothing of those who believe in the
sovereign instrumentality of water.
“In fact, nothing comparatively is known of the philosophy of disease.
Its eradication or cure, where the result of human agency is, in
the great majority of instances, attributable rather to the careful
observation, judgment and experience of the particular practitioner,
than to the application of general or established methods available to
all. The popular axiom, that ‘doctors differ,’ is as true now as it
ever was, and as long as it continues to be so, it is impossible for
the law to recognize any class of practitioners, or the followers of
any particular system or method of treatment, as exclusively entitled
to be regarded as doctors. In adverting to the conflicting views
and differences of opinion, that exist and have ever existed in the
practice of the healing art, it is not to call in question the value
of learned, skilful and experienced physicians, but merely to show
the error of attempting, in the present state of medical science,
to recognize, as matter of law, any one system of practice, or of
declaring that the practitioner who follows a particular system is a
doctor, and that one who pursues a different method is not.” And see
also White _v._ Carroll, 42 N. Y., 161; Ordronaux’ “Jurisprudence of
Medicine,” 27.
This decision was prior to the statute of 1874 and the provisions of
the Penal Code before noted. Since those statutes, it is a misdemeanor
to practise except as permitted by the provisions of those statutes.
IN NEW YORK AND ELSEWHERE PRACTITIONER WITHOUT LICENSE CANNOT SUE AND
RECOVER FOR HIS FEES.
Since the passage of the New York Act of 1844 (Laws of 1844, p. 406),
there has been no precise statutory provision in that State prohibiting
in terms persons who practise physic or surgery without a license,
from suing to obtain a recovery for services performed. But this is of
little consequence, for, as we have already stated, so practising has
been declared to be a misdemeanor by the Penal Code of New York.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account