Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

make no by-law contrary to the laws of the State. That it would be a violation of law, to discipline a member of the old State society, for consulting with those in affiliation with the homœopathic or eclectic societies, is, I think, perfectly clear. This, be it noted, however, is a great way removed from compelling a member of one body to consult with another, although the advocates of the old code have strangely enough, assumed, that freedom in consultations compels an old school or regular practitioner to consult with any one who may call him.

IV. I now turn to the last part of my paper, the disciplinary authority of the American Medical Association. As has been shown by Doctor Piffard, in his excellent papers in the New York Medical Journal, this association was in the beginning a mere congress of physicians throughout the country, called together chiefly at the instance of some members of the New York State Medical Society. It has never secured a charter, and remains a voluntary organization. However it may assume them, it has no rights over ethical matters in the State of New York.

Our State society, at a time when it was much less representative than now, at the instance of the American Medical Association, adopted a

code of ethics which was made up from the writings of Dr. Percival, with an addition in the consultation clause intended for the homoeopaths, instead of its own code adopted in 1823, or, as some authorities say, without repealing its own code. Both these codes were a part of the by-laws of the society. It had as good a right to repeal that of 1848, as it had that of 1823, or as it has to repeal any by-law. The friends of the old code in our State, who insist that the American Medical Association alone shall have power to change our code, are strangely inconsistent, for in 1883, at the annual meeting of our State Society, they voted solidly for certain resolutions which look to a consideration and settlement of the code question, without any reference to the American Medical Association. The assumption of the supreme power of this unchartered congress, over the affairs of the States, is clearly an after-thought of those who have formed an association for the re-enactment of the old code in our State. A national body of physicians which shall have disciplinary power over the profession in the various States, should be very differently constituted from the American Medical Association. It should not be peripatetic, and things should

be so arranged that it would represent the different States of the Union equally well. If we are to have such an association, it should be one without a judicial council acting as a star-chamber, and managed by a junto, who have undertaken to control matters over which they have no concern, and which they do not seem to understand. It should be a legal body, amenable to legal processes, in case it should attempt to commit such an injustice as was perpetrated at the last meeting of the American Medical Association, when an ex post facto law was made by its judicial council, and members were required to take a new pledge, before they could take their seats. Finally, it must be a body devoted chiefly to the scientific and legislative work demanded of such an organization. Even if such an association could be formed in our vast country, I hold that it would have none but advisory powers over the inalienable rights of the members of the profession. But such a body, would command a respect which the one as now constituted, has as yet failed to secure.

To compare the present American Association with the British Medical Association, is to compare things that are unlike in every respect except in name and avowed objects. If the British Medical Association were to attempt

such a high-handed procedure as to the enrolment of members, as was successfully carried out by the judicial council of our association at its last meeting, it would soon be taught better by the strong hand of British law.

It is certain, that the Medical Society of the State of New York, having deliberately shaken off the bond which placed it in the power of the judicial council of the old association, will never again allow itself to be fettered by it.

Our society deliberately made its own rules and repealed or abolished them at pleasure, long before the American Medical Association existed. It will be strange indeed if it consents to give up its legal and natural rights.

It only remains to be said, that the writer of this paper, objects to the new code, except so far as it allows liberty in consultations, for the same general reasons which he has given in his commentary on the old code.

It is my opinion, that those who voted in 1882 for a simple declaratory resolution against conduct plainly unworthy a physician and a gentleman, more nearly represent the feelings of the majority of the best minds in the profession, than do the advocates of any formal and detailed code.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE EVOLUTION

OF LAWS REGULATING THE PRAC-
TICE OF MEDICINE UPON SPECIAL
CODES OF MEDICAL ETHICS.

BY C. R. AGNEW, M.D.,

CLINICAL PROFESSOR IN THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, NEW YORK CITY.

The Act entitled "An Act to Regulate the Licensing of Physicians and Surgeons," passed May 29, 1880 (chap. 513), inaugurated an important era for the people as well as for the medical profession of the State of New York. The act was procured by the wise efforts of public-spirited physicians. It reveals the fact that legislators recognize, more fully than ever before, the vast importance of sanitation, and may be led to lessen, as rapidly as public opinion will sustain them in the enforcement of laws, the evils of medical incompetency and other forms of quackery. It also shows that legislators may be guided, in framing and passing laws to regulate the practice of medicine, by medical men when they in wisdom put prejudice and passion down, and accept what is practicable or tentative. If this is true, then it

123

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »