[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
History See other History Articles Title: Medical Slavery Through Legislation (1893 essay) This isn't a well known essay. It should be. It's a voice of reason from the era of American history when reasonable people were aware of the encroachment of monopoly and corporate power on the legal choices that individuals were being "allowed" to have. As Americans are now well into their fourth or fifth generation of living under the heel of Plutocracy and the "legal" limits on liberty it brings, it's beneficial to revisit what was said of Plutocracy and its consequences before it all took firm hold in the early 20th century. ___________ The toils of legislative restriction and monopoly are often woven so subtly that the average citizen is quite unaware of possible, and even present, abridgments of his personal freedom. Under the seductive plea of protecting him and doing a needed favor, his theoretical guardians put him in shackles of which he is quite unaware, until the occasion comes when liberty is desired for practical use. Then he beats against the solid bars and finds that his supposed freedom is a myth. Many are not aware of the fact, that if, in any one of a great majority of the states of this glorious, free (?) Union, one is healed of disease by means of any treatment denominated "irregular", the person who has done him such a service is liable to arrest, punishment, and classification as a felon. This is a calm statement of fact and not a rhetorical abstraction. Under constitutional guarantees every person is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights not only lie at the foundation of our national government, but are inherent, God given, and universal. Wherever under the broad canopy of heaven they are encroached upon, there is tyranny. This is no less true-rather worse, relatively - when done in democratic America than in "despotic" Russia. Old-world despotism has, at least, an honest though hard front, while an insidious though equally cruel oppression may wear a smiling and benevolent mask. In no degree is this a question between different schools or systems, but of natural, individual liberty, pure and simple. Our forefathers specially provided for religious liberty, and had they imagined that other equally vital individual freedom would ever be imperilled, doubtless they would also have particularized it. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" most assuredly include the right of individual judgment in regard to all those interior, sacred, personal experiences and choices, which are entirely within man as a social unit. Society robs one of all these when, through the forms of law, it makes one's irregular healer- of whatever name he or she may be - a criminal. Personal rights which in their exercise neither conflict with nor pertain to those of others, nor of society in general, are beyond the province of legislation, majorities, or public control or censure. Governmental dictation regarding the style of homes, furniture, or costumes, would be mild in quality, compared with that which concerns life and death. No single medical school has any more moral right to impose its peculiar therapeutic methods upon an unwilling individual, than a Baptist majority in any state would have to require universal immersion. Of the two, the latter might be infinitely more pleasant as well as profitable. Our government is founded upon the intelligence of its citizens. Our legislators are not dictators but servants, and every citizen is a reigning sovereign in his own personal domain. The essence of popular government is control from within, rather than from without. Democracy takes it for granted that citizens are not imbeciles but free, intelligent moral agents. Within proper limits, they are to exercise the power of choice, and that even where the choosing may not always be the best. Educational progress in any department is only possible where the individal is left free - even to make mistakes. A community shut away from everything experimental would never learn anything more. Even if a legislative majority had infallible wisdom, it would have no right, by organized force, to tlu-ust it into the internal recesses of a personal life. Were allopathy an exact science, like mathematics, the ethics of the case would remain unaltered. If a man choose to have any system or no system, for himself, is the body politic to impose one? Medical legalized monopoly ruthlessly tramples upon the most sacred private domain. It is moral robbery, masquerading as humane legalism. The position may be confidently taken, that legislative medical coercion is not only oppressive and immoral, but unconstitutional. It is to be hoped that some thorough test case from one of the monopoly-ridden states may soon find its way to the highest tribunal of the land, on constitutional grounds. In the whole sisterhood of states, only three - Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island - remain entirely free from medical usurpation. Desperate attempts to slip on the fetters have been repeatedly made in Massachusetts, and one quite recently in Maine, but through the vigilance of the friends of freedom they were defeated. The allopathic "blue laws" of the several states differ in degree, some being very intolerent and arbitrary, and others somewhat milder. The "Act Concerning the Practice of Medicine" passed by the Connecticut legislature in the spring of 1893, was more liberal than those of most other states, owing to the remonstrances of many intelligent and progressive people, who by much effort succeeded in getting it considerably modified before its final passage. Space will not allow, nor is it necessary, to examine in detail the various laws now in force in the several states for the "regulation" of medical practice. However they may differ in specific particulars, their animus is one and the same. Their temper is mercenary, selfish, and bigoted. Without exception they are contrary to the spirit of the age, subversive to true progress, and a disgrace to any government that is theoretically liberal. They are belated reverberations from the seventeenth century. If the secret circulars, log-rolling, and cabalistic intrigue which were used to engineer these various acts through legislatures were all brought to light, they would furnish excellent material for romance, founded on fact. Unsuspecting clergymen and busy editors have often been made "cat's paws" to aid in pulling these medical chestnuts out of the ashes. The average legislator, when newly invested with the glamour of office, feels it incumbent upon him to regulate things in general. What is he there for, but to set everything right? He needs but a hint that something requires bracing up, and he is ready to embrace the opportunity. This is no question of allopathy verms any other "pathy". The principles contended for tower above any and all systems. Let each have a fair field to prove itself. To shut off opportunity is stagnation. Bar it out, and all evolutionary progress is congealed, dead in its tracks. Let it be noted that the vast majority of intelligent and honorable allopathic physicians have had no hand in this intolerant legalism. They have not only remained neutral but, in many cases, opposed it. They have confidence enough in their own system to be willing that it should stand upon its merits, without being artificially bolstered up, and forced upon the public under the forms of law. All honor to thousands of high-minded doctors of the old school, who gladly accord the same liberty in the solution of the most vital problem in human experience which they expect for themselves. Their dependence is not upon diplomas, and they are not the slaves of system. They are not superior to improvement, and welcome any change that will promote human welfare. But there is a less numerous class of mercenary bigots who want every one outlawed if he fail to bow before their fetish. They dare not place their work upon the basis of the discrimination of an intelligent public, but ask that their "sheepskins " be made legal tender. There is no other profession or occupation that expects to have a clientage furnished through governmental coercion. This is the class that have moved heaven and earth to have the business of healing "regulated". They are extremely anxious to have the dear people protected from cheap quackery. No wonder that honorable physicians, not in league with these zealots, are concerned for the honor of their profession. But the liberty-loving people of America will never rest quietly until every vestige of mediaeval proscription is swept from the statute books. There still exists an intangible but real residuum of the same spirit which burned Bruno, imprisoned Galileo, and whipped Quakers. Those brave souls were the irregulars of the past. Assumed infallibility, whether in religion, astronomy, therapeutics, or any other department, has always waged a warfare against progress. When Harvey made the unconventional announcement of the circulation of the blood, he was denounced as a heretic and crank. Every human growth and advancement has been born of influences outside of conventional boundaries. Do the people need to be "protected"? Are they incompetent to choose their system of healing, and do they suffer in consequence? There is no evidence of this in the comparative mortuary records. On the other hand, some carefully recorded experiments in certain European hospitals show a much larger ratio of recoveries in the same diseases where simple nursing was administered, than where it was combined with drug treatment. If traditional materia medica were admittedly an exact science, the points already made could not be controverted; but is it more than a shifting system of experiments? This question might be answered in the negative by page upon page of positive declarations, made by the most eminent allopathic exponents and authors who have outgrown the trammels of system. Space will not be taken for such quotations, for few intelligent people are unfamiliar with them. A few names, however, may be mentioned of men of world-wide reputations, who have spoken in most emphatic terms upon this subject. Among them are Sir Astley Cooper, John Mason Good, M. D., F. R. S., Dr. Abercrombie of the Royal College in Edinburgh, Dr. Abernethy, London, Dr. Andrew Combe, Dr. Alexander M. Ross, F. R. S. L., Professor Magendie of Paris, Sir William Hamilton, and a host of others. Some have made such astounding assertions that to quote them would shock many sensitive souls who are reposing in regular "practice", believing it scientific and infallible. An eminent English physician, in speaking of the medical "fads" of recent date, says that we have had the "purging craze", the "sweating craze", the "vomiting craze", the "blue-glass craze", the "Pasteur craze", the "Brown-Sequard elixir of life craze", the "inhalation craze", the " cod liver oil craze", and last, but not least, the "Koch tuberculosis craze". The latest addition is the " microbe craze". Regarding medical legislation as viewed from an ethical standpoint, outside the profession, two or three quotations may not be amiss. Says the Right Honorable W. E. Gladstone: - Professor Huxley, in speaking of this subject, observes: - Among much else of similar import, Herbert Spencer, in his "Social Statics", while speaking of English governmental establishment, says: - Judge C. C. Nourse, an able American expounder of constitutional law, in tbe midst of a powerful argument, remarked: - So far as is known, no demand for medical legalism has ever originated with the people. The whole business has been engineered among the lower grade members of "the profession". The motive claimed is hunianitarianism. Such unselfish devotion to the interest of the people should receive appreciation! Citizens of the despotic governments of Germany, Austria, and Russia have a larger medical liberty than that enjoyed in most of the states of the American Union. The poor man who cannot pay a fashionable fee can be accommodated by cheaper practitioners and even apothecaries. Medical fees average about three times as much in America as in Germany. Our rich people do not mind this, but to many a poor man, with a chronic invalid in his family, it is a crushing burden. We have also more than three times the number of doctors, in proportion to the population, that Germany has. As this disproportion is constantly increasing, it is an interesting social problem how all are to live, unless disease increases even more rapidly than the population. The average person must be disordered longer, require more visits, and at higher prices. If maladies fail to multiply, the monopoly will have to be more absolute. The annual crowds of graduates, with diplomas, need a field for the exercise of their talents. The common laws against malpractice put every one, of every school, who assumes to heal professionally, on the defensive. Such laws are necessary. Under them, any recklessness or ignorant assumption is perilous to the pretender. But there is no unmovable medical standard. Of all disagreements, those of doctors are the most general and emphatic. This is not the fault of the men but of the system. Justice in cases of malpractice should be done impartially, independent of school or diploma. The usual legal requirement that every burial certificate be signed by a regular M. D. is oppressive, and opens a wide field for proscription and persecution. As its ostensible purpose is only the detection of wrong-doing, the signatures to such a document of two reputable citizens should be sufficient. If a man chooses to die without the aid of a "regular", it is rather severe that he cannot have an orderly burial without his post-mortem services. This is one of the many strands of the monopoly. Not long since the reporter of a leading Boston daily visited ten prominent physicians, with the self-same story of pains and disabilities. Each diagnosed a different disorder and prescribed a different remedy. The case of Garfield was an object lesson in infallibility, and there have been many later ones among noted men. The marvellous agreement in detail (?) between different "experts" in legal examinations is too well appreciated to require mention. Why are prescriptions written in Latin - and generally in bad Latin? The practice was begun in a more ignorant age, to make a profound impression of mystery and great learning. It was a kind of charm, and the profession may have blindly recognized that it included a real psychological factor. Its present practical use, however, seems to be to furnish additional chances for mistakes by druggists' clerks, and to enable them to charge exorbitant prices for simples disguised by formidable Latin names. The new-fangled practice of "examination", by stripping, sounding, drumming, and kneading, accompanied by tests with speculum and stethoscope, for every trifling backache or headache, is a part of the professional paraphernalia for making an impression. It is another strand in the cord. However, impressions sometimes cure. Not long since a patient, whose temperature had been taken by the usual test under the tongue, soon after begged that it be done again, as the operation had greatly relieved him. One of the latest achievements in medical science is the use of whiskey for habies to prevent cholera infantum. This, however, has not been generally adopted outside of New York City. Who are the "irregulars"? Broadly speaking, they include the homeopathists, eclectics, hydropathists, magnetic, electric, and "biochemic" practitioners, Thomsonians, hygienists, metaphysicians, Christian scientists, mental healers, hypnotists, clairvoyants, mediumistic healers, faith curists, gospel healers, and members of the Christian Alliance. There are also the massage, vacuum, and "grape cures", to say nothing of the many sarsaparillas which "cure". It would be in accord with evolutionary principles to give all a fair field and no favors. Whatever good there may be in each should have an opportunity to make itself manifest. In the long run it will survive, but it should not be forcefully deranged and retarded. The irregulars may differ in principle as widely as the antipodes, but one thing they have in common; it is a place in the ranks of liberty, in the never-ending contest with legalized despotism. In several states the homoeopaths have become so numerous and influential that-as a matter of policy-they have been invited to enter the monopoly. In others, the eclectics have also been "taken in". It does not matter that theories are entirely antagonistic, or that the allopath considers the homoeopath a heretic, and refuses to meet him in consultation; all the same he will welcome him - when necessary - to strengthen the monopoly. But a few years ago, and his pretensions were ridiculed; now he has gained social standing and must be reckoned with. But greatly to the honor of homeopaths and eclectics, they have generally declined such an unnatural alliance. In 1889 both the American Institute of Homoeopathy and the National Eclectic Medical Association passed resolutions in favor of medical freedom. There have, however, been exceptions in some states and among individual practitioners. Legislative monopoly makes it an offence to practise healing irregularly. To cure is as much a violation of the law as to kill. The criminal trials of some of the guilty culprits who have cured cases given up by regulars have been editorially ventilated in past issues of The Arena. Such a prosecution, however, is practically so much of a popular eye-opener that considerations of policy generally make It expedient to allow the law to remain a dead letter until some irregular makes a failure. He may cure a hundred and nothing is said, but woe to him if once unsuccessful. It makes no difference whether or not the case be desperate - if, through solicitation, he take it and fail, persecution is let loose. Any number of people may be allowed to die peacefully, if they will only do it in a proper and conventional manner. The vital question is, Shall the state step in between the invalid and his deepest convictions and most sacred rights, and veto them? It is obvious that there should be a general and systematic effort put forth by the friends of liberty and progress to restore the democratic principle in therapeutics. The monopoly is strongly intrenched, but if the people can be awakened to the real issue, the despotic mandates may be expunged from the statute books. The purpose of this paper is to deal with a few foundation principles; but as organization is of the highest practical importance, the writer is glad to have the opportunity to call attention to a powerful instrumentality which is engaged in the systematic prosecution of the work of medical disestablishment. It is the National Constitutional Liberty League, with headquarters at 383 Washington Street, Boston. Its president is Professor J. Rodes Buchanan, M. D., and its efficient secretary is J. Winfield Scott, Esq., whose address is at the League rooms in Boston. It has on hand a great variety of telling literature, in the shape of pamphlets, papers, and tracts, which are sent out at low rates for distribution among legislators and the public generally. Through its agents and attorneys it will gladly co-operate with the interested people of any state for the repeal or prevention of arbitrary enactments. Any funds placed at the disposal of the League will be sacredly used for the purpose indicated, and the more means it can command, the greater work it will be able to accomplish. These points are given independently of any solicitation, and in answer to anticipated questions as to the practical ways and means through which this great reform may be carried forward. We are informed that a thorough history of the medical legislation of the United States is in course of preparation by the scholarly Professor Alexander Wilder, M. D., of Newark, N. J. Professor Wilder is an ex medical professor, a competent writer, and for some time has been secretary and editor of the National Eclectic Medical Society. His forthcoming work will be of general interest. It is especially to be hoped that New York will make an effort, at the next session of its legislature, to throw off the yoke of medical bondage and become as free as Massachusetts. Such a victory by the progressive people of the Empire State would be a great moral inspiration all along the line. An organization, even if small in each state, through which liberty-loving people may concentrate their strength, seems highly desirable. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: bluegrass (#0)
WHAT A TELLING STATEMENT!!!!! It is vital to understand that there is no truth without discernment and no wisdom without the truth. What then is “faith” but an effort to confound truth and wisdom?
I guess eventually they will force us to get sick by forcing their GMO foods, vaccines, pasteurization of everything, irradiation of everything, spiked water, florescent lighting and food additives on us. It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
With the head of the FDA being Michael Taylor, the doctors don't really have to worry about job security http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/lies-and-deception-how-the-fda-does- not-protect-your-best-interests/ It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
It's not really the doctors that have to worry anymore. It's about the elite that wish to reduce the general population by 80% for the coming NWO. It is vital to understand that there is no truth without discernment and no wisdom without the truth. What then is “faith” but an effort to confound truth and wisdom?
Georgia Guidestones http://www.radioliberty.com/pca.htm It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
The more I read from this era, the more I see how much the "average" man was informed back then. No fools were they.
Make us sick, sell us the cure, keep themselves in business. What could go wrong?
Well put, just one alteration: Make us sick, sell us the treatment, keep themselves in business. What could go wrong? It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||