154 P. 941 | Utah | 1916
Lead Opinion
The defendant, npon a complaint filed by the state board of medical examiners, was enjoined from practicing medicine within the state until he obtained a license. He appeals. His chief complaints are that injunction will not lie, and that the proved committed acts did not constitute practicing medicine within the meaning of the statute. Any person practicing medicine within the • state without a certificate or license is guilty of a misdemeanor. C. L. 1907, Section .1739. “Practicing medicine” is defined thus:
“Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine within* the meaning of this title, who shall diagnose, treat, operate upon, or prescribe or advise for, any physical or mental aib ment or any abnormal, mental or physical condition of another, after having received or with the intent to receive therefor, either directly or indirectly, any fee, gift, compensation or other pecuniary benefit, reward or consideration; or who shall hold himself out by means of signs, cards, advertisements or otherwise, as a physician or surgeon,” etc. Laws 1911, p. 135.
It further is provided (C. L. 1907, Section 1737) that:
“Any person practicing medicine, surgery, or obstetrics within the state contrary to law may, at the instance of the board [medical examiners] herein created appearing as plaintiff in the district court, be enjoined by said court from practicing medicine, surgery, or obstetrics in this state until such person shall have been by said board lawfully admitted to practice,” etc.
“The General Assembly, having the authority to attach prior conditions to the practice of medicine, was vested with the right to-enforce enactments on that subject by prescribing penalties for violations of the same, either by fine, by imprisonment, or by civil remedies. The right to practice medicine being conditioned by law upon the prior obtaining'of a certificate from a medical board, plaintiffs were clearly authorized [under an act], when they had reason to-believe that defendant was violating the law in this respect, to test the facts of the case through injunction.” -
Supporting tbis are also the eases of Ex parte Allison, 99 Tex. 455, 90 S. W. 870, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1116, 122 Am. St. Rep. 653; Sumner v. Crawford, 91 Tex. 132, 41 S. W. 994; State ex rel Duensing v. Roby, 142 Ind. 168, 41 N. E. 145, 33' L. R. A. 213, 51 Am. St. Rep. 174; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31, 10 Sup. Ct. 424, 33 L. Ed. 801; Ohlrogg v. Smith, 126 Iowa, 247, 99 N. W. 178; State ex rel v. Durein,. 46 Kan. 697; North American Insurance Co. v. Yates, 214 Ill. 272, 73 N. E. 423. These cases and the following, Littleton v. Fritz, 65 Iowa 488, 22 N. W. 641, 54 Am. Rep. 19, State Tax Law Case, 54 Mich. 350, 26 N. W. 493, and State v. Saunders, 66 N. H. 39, 25 Atl. 588, 18 L. R. A. 646, also answer-the further contentions that a proceeding by injunction in. such particular is a denial of the right of trial by jury, and, as the defendant may be punished oh a criminal prosecution, if he also be made subject to an injunction and deprived of' his calling, he is punished twice for the same offense or act.’ Unless prevented by some - constitutional provision, which is:
“A system of therapeutic treatment for various diseases, through the adjusting of articulations of the human body, particularly those of the spine, with the object of relieving pressure or tension upon nerve filaments. The operations are performed with the hands, no drugs being administered.”
By the International Ency.:
“A system of manipulations which aims to cure disease by the mechanical restoration of displaced or subluxated bones, especially the vertebrae, to their normal relation. It is claimed that slight displacements of the spinal segments are frequent, that they constrict important nerves and arteries, and that chiropractic adjustment corrects the displacement and relieves the pressure.”
The defendant had a common school education, and one year in a high school. From the time he was sixteen to thirty-one years of age he was a machinist working in machine shops. Then he took a one-year’s course and graduated in chirapractic at Dr. Palmer’s school at Davenport, Iowa, and thereafter, for about four years, and until these proceedings, practiced his profession or calling. The statute (Laws 1911, p. 132) provides :
“The board (medical examiners) shall have power to examine any person of good moral character who furnishes satisfactory proof of having received a degree or diploma from a legally chartered medical college, the requirements whereof shall include the following subjects as required by. the board at the present time, namely: Histology, anatomy, physiology, chemistry, toxicology, urinalysis, therapeutics, bacteriology, pathology, theory and practice of medicine, or osteopathy, surgery, obstetrics,' materia medica or osteopathic therapeutics, gynecology, pediatrics, dermatology, hygiene, medical jurisprudence, ophthalmology, otology, rhinology, laryngology.
It is not claimed that Dr. Palmer’s school met these requirements or that the defendant had studied or had knowledge of any of these subjects, except anatomy, physiology, toxicology, urinalysis, and obstetrics. And thus is it apparent that he did not possess a degree or diploma of such a college as is.required by the statute to entitle him to take an examination. He maintained an office at Ogden, and in the newspapers advertised as a “ Graduate Chiropractor. No drugs, or surgery, or osteopathy. Try chiropractic. Rooms 212-13-14 Col. Hudson Building. Phone 311.” Just what he did is best shown by the testimony of his patients whom he treated or manipulated, and by his own testimony.
One of them testified:
That he took his little girl to the defendant for treatment. “I took the girl there to see what was wrong with her, and I asked the doctor what was the cause, and he said it was St. Vitus’ dance, and I asked him if he thought he could do any good, and he said he could; he undressed the baby and laid it on a sort of table and pressed on her spine, * * * and said there was some of the spine was out of place, and by putting them back it would cure the case. * * # He said that the spine was out of adjustment, needed replacing, needed resetting, or something, * * * wanted to know if the baby was ever hurt, and I told'him she was, and at that time he said as soon as he examined her he could see she had been hurt upon the head.”
Another witness testified:
That he had been sick for several months, and asked the defendant if he could help him. The defendant replied that he
Another testified:
“I consulted him about my condition, and he told-me what the matter was, and he told me that he could guarantee me a cure. He said I had a goiter; that he would cure me for $60. He gave me the adjustments, that is what he calls it; all his treatments, he gives the adjustment of the spine, that is, the main part. He has a table, I should judge, about five or six feet long. It has a place for your feet and a headrest, and the other part is just hollow, and you are face downward, and he adjusts the spine or the neck. * * * He does it with his hands and fingers. I think I went up there three months. * '* * I had a goiter. I had been to medical men and had them treat me. A regular practicing physician told me the best thing was to have it taken out, and then I went to Free-nor. # * #- He examined my spine. * * * He simply placed his hands along the spinal column, and asked me if there was any soreness, and when I told him there was he placed pressure on that part of my spine. * * * While I was in his office he called my attention to another patient who had epileptic fits, and he said he could cure them. * * * He showed me how he adjusted him for it. The young man thought he had a goiter, but he [the defendant] said it was no more, goiter than anything else, but he didn’t have a goiter; that what he had was this other. He just took his hand and rah down his spine, and he told me just exactly where it was and how he did in order to cure this disease. ’ ’
Another testified:
! ‘ I took the baby up there. He examined the baby down the spine and neck. He said it was a weakness of the spine that ailed the baby; there were three disconnections; that the spine wanted to be adjusted. I have been taking her ever since until now, and he is treating her now. * * * I have paid bim eighty dollars. * * * I saw improvement in the child in about three weeks, * * * and the child is continuing to improve. * * * I had taken the child to medical doctors, and they didn’t give me any relief. * * * He told
Another witness testified:
“He examined my daughter and told me what ailed her. He said diabetes. He only adjusted her spine. She lay on his table. * * * I think it was the seventh or eighth joint where he adjusted it. He didn’t say he could cure my daughter. He has been treating her right along. * * * Two doctors had treated her. She got no relief, and then I went to Freenor in despair. He took and pressed her back, felt the vertebrae as they go along there, and he pressed on a particular vertebra. ■ # * * It showed that the vertebrae was out of alignment at that point, and that appeared to be more tender than the other places. * * * It was about the eighth, I think, from the neck. * * * He put his hand on the spinal column at that place and gave some pressure and adjusted the vertebra. * * * My daughter has improved; * * * she is gaining right along.”
Another testified:
“I had been quite sick, and I tried several things, and couldn’t get relief.” She went to the defendant. “I think he told me what he thought ailed me. The back had been jarred and kind of grown together. He didn’t give it a name. He said my spleen ailed me. It was spleen anaemia. I took some treatments. I don’t exactly know how many. * * # He told me that this trouble came from the backbone, from the nerve being pinched. * * * He told me that the vertebrae was out of normal condition. He told me it was subluxed. There was two or three of the vertebrae adjusted. * # * He called my attention that certain nerves coming through the spinal column, through the foramina lead to certain organs of the body, and these particular places where I felt a soreness were places where the nerves came out and ran to the spleen, and at that particular place there was a sort of squeezing of the nerves supplying the control of the spleen.”
Another testified:
“We took our little boy up there. He looked at the boy. I told him he had infant’s paralysis, and that he was paralyzed,
Another testified:
That she was ill; that her hands and feet would get numb just like they were, paralyzed; that she had severe pain in the neck and back of her head for six years. “He didn’t tell me what ailed me, only in a way. He said for one thing I was tired and worn out and poor circulation of the blood, and was caused from the spine. He said he might help me; he wasn’t certain. * * * He adjusted my spine. * * * He put his hand down my spinal column and found eight different places in my spine that was very bad. * * * He didn’t say what the trouble was. He just treated me and kept his mouth shut; he didn’t say anything about it. He put his hands on my spine and gave a quick movement. * * * It cured me sound and well from that pain in my head.”
Another witness consulted the defendant for pain in the head. He told her—
“there was a vertebra right here between my shoulders that was out of place. * * * He just used his hands and pressed on that vertebra and put it back in place. * * * He said the fourth or fifth * * * was out of place, and that would cause the arteries to be shut off going to this side of the head, the nerves, and that it stopped the circulation of the blood, and by putting that back into place would overcome this. I took my child to the defendant. # * * He showed me a couple of vertebrae that were out of place. I could see they were out of line. He placed the child upon the. table; then put his hand on the child’s back along the vertebrae and gave a quick shove or push. * * * It cried and walked in his sleep for six years. The child got over it, and has not been troubled since.”
Other witnesses testified to similar treatments for other ailments. All of them testified that the defendant used no drugs, administered no medicine, nor used any instrument or agency
The defendant was a witness in his own behalf. After defining the system of chiropractic, he testified:
“As. a chiropractor, I claim'that, if a vertebra is out of proper relation’ to the others, it impinges or presses upon • some nerve, and that that impingement or pressure upon some nerve interferes with the transmission of the vital force to the tissues and organs of the body, and my purpose is merely to remove that pressure, to the end that the normal transmission of life energy may be carried to the organs and tissues of the body. At the point in the spine where I adjust the vertebrae there is no diseased condition nor abnormal or pathological condition in a diseased sense. These parts, though slightly out of place, are nevertheless normal and. healthy. There may, however, as a result of the condition I describe in the spine, be disease in some or all parts of the body. The chiropractor has nothing to do with the diseased part. All I do is to adjust the vertebrae to their normal position to take the pressure off the nerve that is hindering a normal flow of life energy and producing a lack of function in those tissues manifesting disease. * * * I do not make any diagnosis of the patient. I do not do anything except what I have already described. The thing I do there I call an adjustment. My hands are locked, and the movement is by straightening the arm as rapidly as possible, like that, for the reason that I attempt to remove that vertebra alone. If I used a heavy forceful pressure, I would move the whole spine, and what I want to do is just to move the one vertebra that is out of position, and I must strike it like you would plain brick, if you wanted to move one of the bricks into alignment, that is all you do in making the adjustment. * * * ‘The school I attended [Palmer School of Chiropractic] does not tell how to treat kinds of diseases; it doesn’t try to distinguish between one disease and another, except so far as they want to teach terminology. If a fellow said, ‘I have got Bright’s disease,’ well, you wouldn’t know what Bright’s disease was, or if he said he had diabetes mellitus, you wouldn’t know what that was, or neuralgia, or inflammation; it is to dis
Whether the doing of these things is practicing medicine is dependent upon the statute. They, under some statutes, have been held not practicing medicine. State v. Liffring, 61 Ohio St. 39, 55 N. E. 168, 46 L. R. A. 334, 76 Am. St. Rep. 358; State v. Herring, 70 N. J. Law 34, 56 Atl. 670, 1 Ann. Cas. 51; Hayden v. State, 81 Miss. 291, 33 South. 653, 95 Am. St. Rep. 471; State v. Gallagher, 101 Ark. 593, 143 S. W. 98, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 328; Bennett v. Ware, 4 Ga. App. 293, 61 S. E. 546. These statutes defined the practice of medicine to be the prescribing, directing, or applying “any drug or medicine' or other agency, or appliance” for the treatment of disease, etc. The rulings were influenced by the maxim noseitur a socvis, in obedience to which the words “agency” and “appliance”
“If any one does that without a license, he offends, no matter what remedy, substance, or thing he may prescribe, give, administer, or advise. * * * He offends though he may give or administer but castor oil, or Hostetter’s bitters, or' a boiled concoction of bark, roots, or herbs, or may give nothing, and only advise exercise or rest,”
The statute is not restricted to prescribing, giving, administering, or applying drugs, medicine, or other agency or remedy. It is broad and unrestricted, and by its language was intended to be so. The court in State v. Edmunds, 127 Iowa 333, 101 N. W. 431, said:
“Undoubtedly the state has the right to determine what acts shall constitute the practicing of the healing art, and it may impose conditions on the exercise of that privilege. * * * Having defined the terms it uses, courts should accept the definition given, and not be too subtle in the use of refined distinctions. To save its people from quacks and charlatans, the state has plenary power to prohibit [prescribe] or supervise the exercise of the healing art.”
Our statute is similar to the Illinois statute. There it was held that one practicing osteopathy was practicing medicine within the meaning of that statute declaring that “any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine who shall treat, operate on, or prescribe for, any physical ailment of another.” Jones v. People, 84 Ill. App. 453. Similar rulings were made under statutes not as broad as ours (Bragg v. State, 134 Ala, 165, 32 South. 767, 58 L. R. A. 925; Little v. State, 60 Neb. 749, 84 N. W. 248, 51 L. R. A. 717; State v. Gravett, 65 Ohio
The law is not concerned with the question of whether chiropractic is as good as or better than other systems of treatment. It is concerned with the question that before any one shall undertake, no matter by what system, to diagnose, treat, operate upon, or prescribe or advise for any physical or mental ailment or condition of another for a fee or other consideration, he shall possess the learning and skill required by the statute and produce a degree or diploma from a college meeting the ■ requirements enumerated in the statute, and successfully pass an examination before the board showing his competency.'
When we look to the testimony of the defendant’s patients, it very clearly appears that he not only diagnosed physical ailments and abnormal conditions, but also- treated them. One of them he diagnosed as “St. Vitus’ dance;” another “a goiter;” another “spleen anaemia;” another “diabetes;” another as “a worn-out condition” and “lack of blood circulation;” and all of them as displaced or subluxed vertebrae, some at six or eight places. These he manipulated and adjusted to remove the cause producing the ailments which he said the patients had. That such is diagnosing and treating an ailment or condition of another cannot successfully be gainsaid. As stated by the Illinois court (Jones v. People, supra), if that “is not a treatment or operation for a physical ailment, what is it? It seems to us the mere statement of the question demonstrates the absurdity of every opposite position.”
But it is said that, if such a system as practiced by the defendant did no good, it did no harm, and that it is unlike administering powerful drugs or performing surgical, operations, from which ill consequences may follow unless in the hands of the skillful. Though the defendant’s treatments may be harmless, still that is no reason to permit him to violate the law. The statute does not say that one may operate upon or treat an ailment of another so long as he does him no harm or shall not make him worse. But this oft-repeated statement does not bear scrutiny. Much harm may come to one afflicted with an ailment and seeking professional advice or aid from one incompetent to give it. There are many ailments'in their acute stages which, if correctly diagnosed and properly-treated, yield most readily, but, if not recognized, and not. properly treated, become, in their chronic stages, most stub
We think the findings are well supported by the evidence, and that the judgment is right.
It therefore is affirmed, with costs.
Concurrence Opinion
I fully concur in all that is said by the Chief Justice. In view of the importance of the questions involved, however, it may not be out of place for me to make a few observations.
It is seldom that the wisdom, utility, and the necessity of a statute can be so forcibly and irrefutably demonstrated in an opinion as is the case in the preceding opinion. Here is a so-called doctor who, without hesitation, informs us in the first quarter of the twentieth century, that:
"In case of diphtheria I would assume that that was caused primarily by some defect with the nerve leading from the vertebrae. ’ ’
Instead of arresting the deadly toxins, the doctor would merely "palpate” the spine, and in that way attempt a cure.
The same would be true, he informs us, in case of typhoid, tuberculosis, malaria, or any other like disease, all of which, it has been demonstrated over and over again, are caused by some form of bacilli or bacteria. The experiments and experience of the past forty years, all of which have become pub
■ The fact that no specific has as yet been discovered for all communicable diseases is no reason why those -who desire to>
“Like leaves on trees the race of man is found,
Now green in youth, now withering on the ground;
. Another race the following spring supplies;
• They fall successive, and successive rise. ’1
Vital statistics have, however, become publicly known whereby it is shown that the causes of disease are becoming more and more understood, and that the public health and welfare are being safeguarded best by those men who are best qualified to discover and recognize the different-forms of organisms which cause diseases in the human body. If the present statute, in connection with proper quarantine regulations, is properly enforced, society will at least be protected against the spread of communicable diseases; and, if that is accomplished, the question of whether one or the other system of healing is applied in individual cases is merely of secondary importance. One fact must, however, be conceded by all fair-