MEDICAL LEGISLATION.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the order to be the consideration of the bill [S. 74] to regulate the practice of medicine, the question being on the amendment (by Mr. Garrigus) to Section 6, pending at the last adjournment, requiring graduates of Medical Colleges or Schools to be examined by the Board before being licensed to practice.
The amendment was rejected by yeas, 8; nays, 32.
On motion by Mr. URMSTON, the clause in Section 6, declaring that certificates may be issued to physicians not graduates, who have practiced ten years, was amended by adding the words "consecutively in any one location."
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to strike out of Section 6 the clause reciting that after March 1, 1882, certificates shall be issued to none but graduates in medicine. A just and fair criticism on this bill, that it is largely, if not mainly, in the interest of Medical Colleges in this State. It leaves the question open as to whether this bill does not make a diploma from a Medical College equivalent to a certificate of qualification from the Boards of Medical Examiners provided for in this bill. If that is to be the standard, then that and that alone should be the standard. While he felt as much interest as any one in all the institutions for the education of the people, he objected to throwing around these Colleges a legal safegaurd or requirement that no one shall practice medicine unless he or she pass through a Medical College.
Mr. VAN VORHIS said the friends of the bill would not object to this amendment.
Mr. SPANN, on the ground of justice and equity to practicing physicians, opposed the clause in the bill proposed to be stricken out, and favored the amendment. There ought to be some equitable limit prescribed, and in this bill the lines are not drawn fairly. The title of this bill should be "a bill for an act to furnish students to Medical Colleges."
Mr. COFFEY moved to amend Section 6 so as to include, among those entitled to certificates, those who have attended one full course of lectures in some Medical College,and are engaged in the practice of medicine. He believed that if the people need legislation upon this subject, if practicable, it would be better to enact a law quiring all physician to show by an examination that they are qualified to practice, before licensing them to do so.
Mr. VAN VORHIS understood the provision of the bill to include the persons referred to in amendment.
Mr. WOOLLEN also saw nothing in the objection raised by the author of the amendment.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPANN moved to amend the clause in Section 6 authorizing certificates to be issued to physicians not graduates who have practiced ten years, so as as to make it three years instead of ten.
Mr. CHAPMAN favored the amendment. In seven cases out of ten a man will have as good a reputation after practicing three years as after practicing ten. He will not have the experience of course, but he can demonstrate the ability or inability to practice in three years as well as in ten. Ten years is unreasonable, especially since the amendment was adopted requiring the practice to be for that term consecutively in one locality.
Mr. BELL feared the object of some Senators was to tack upon the bill objectionable amendments. He hoped this amendment would be rejected. A man who has not attended lectures is hardly competent to practice in three years; ten years would be better.
page: 213[View Page 213]Mr. SPANN offered this amendment in good faith and at the suggestion of one of the reputable physicians who helped frame this bill. He knew not of a single physician in his County who desired this bill should go upon the statute book.
Mr. YANCEY believed a man incompetent in three years would be incompetent in ten. The practice of medicine requires experence, education and other qualifications. This bill is to protect people against incompetent practitioners of medicine. Because a man has deceived the people for ten or more years, is that any reason why such an one should be allowed to keep up the imposition? This is a gradual emancipation bill and its opponents are not the proper persons from who to expect proper amendments.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. HENRY offered a substitute for Section 6, providing that any person who passes an examination shall receive a certificate to practice medicine. The bill does not properly present the question of qualification; in the term of twelve months it changes, and does not require of a certain class what it did before.
Mr. GRAHAM was convinced from the discussion that the bill is neither satisfactory to the physicians nor to the people of the State. A delegation of doctors have come here from his District to request him to vote against the bill in its present from.
Mr. BUNDY moved to refer the bill and pending amendments to a Special Committee of Five.
Mr. SHAFFER opposed the motion.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. VIEHE made an ineffectual demand for the previous question.
The substitue was rejected by yeas, 19; nays, 25.
Mr. BROWN made an ineffectual motion--yeas, 17; nays, 27--that the bill be ordered engrossed.
Mr. BROWN moved to reconsider the vote adopting the amendment [Mr. Urmston's] adding the words "consecutively in any one location."
Mr. SPANN moved to lay this motion on the table.
Then came the recess till 2 o'clock p. m.
