IN SENATE.
WEDNESDAY, February 23, 1881--10 a. m.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 laying on the table a motion to reconsider the vote adopting an amendment to the clause in Section 6 declaring that certificates may be issued to physicians not graduates who have practiced ten years, by adding the words "consecutively in any one location."
The motion to lay on the table was rejected by yeas, 3; nays, 34--and the amendment was adopted after striking out all but the word "consecutively."
Mr. HOWARD moved to amend Section 6 so as to include among those entitled to certificates those who have attended one course of lectures in some reputable Medical College and have been engaged the practice of medicine three years within this State.
Mr. SPANN was glad to see physicians in the Senate coming to understand that justice should be done to others than those named in the bill.
Mr. COFFEY also was pleased to see this amendment offered, it being similar to one presented by himself on yesterday.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SHAFFER moved to amend Section 8 by requiring applicants to have read medicine three years, attended two full terms in some regularly-chartered Medical College belonging to the Medical College Association, etc. He said it is absolutely necessary some such amendment should be adopted in order to give the bill more character and credit than it otherwise would have. We have got to go to the foundation of medical education--to our medical schools--in order to raise the standard. It is expected we shall do something to raise the standard of medical education. There are schools all over the State grinding out medical graduates who are as illy-qualified to practice medicine as many who have never attended medical lectures at all. By complying with the terms of this amendment, men can go out and be a credit to the professon. There are schools in this State, as well as all over the United States, which will grant a diploma after one course of lectures, lasting only about three months.
Mr. FOSTER thought the amendment was a little bit too rich, as the boys say, for the Senate, and he hoped it would not be adopted.
Mr BELL with great doubts supported this bill containing the word "reputable" in it, as applied to Medical Colleges, believing there is some demand for such a measure, but if amendments like this are to be attached to it, he can not support the bill.
Mr. SHAFFER was honest and sincere in beliving every word in the amendment would prove for the best interest of the profession and for the best interest of society. Its great object is to do away with the bastard Medical Colleges all over the country, whose diplomas are not worth the paper they are written on.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to strike out the clause in Section 8, requiring a sworn statement setting forth whether or not the applicant is a graduate of a Medical College. He did not believe in multiplying sworn statements as a matter of public policy, and did not believe it would have a particle of effect in keeping out charlatans or quacks.
Mr. VAN VORHIS said it was unfortunately too true that many who hold diplomas are not qualified to practice medicine, and such diplomas are only evidence that the holder has been where he could qualify himself.
Mr. MENZIES thought the section as it is would have a deterring influence upon charlatans, imposters and quacks. It will scare a good many, if it does nothing more.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPANN moved to add a proviso to punish false affidavits.
Mr. BROWN opposed this amendment. There is a statute prescribing punishment for perjury and the subornation of perjury, which is ample.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRAHAM moved an amendment to Section 9, allowing applicants failing to obtain licenses to appeal to the Circuit Court. He said the amendment should prevail, because it allows an appeal to an impartial tribunal, etc.
The amaendment was rejected.
Mr. HENRY moved to add a new section to prohibit physicians from receiving any part of the price of medicine furnished on their perscriptions or orders for patronage.
page: 217[View Page 217]Mr. VAN VOHIS did not think the face of the bill should be marred by any amendment of this kind.
Mr. COMSTOCK said if these abuses exist they ought to be remedied; if they do not exist the amendment can do no harm.
Mr. YANCEY could not see in the transaction referred to any fraud or any conspiracy to wrong anyone. He hoped the amendment would not prevail.
Mr. HENRY did not believe his amendment would injure reputable physicians. He has been informed, in a confidential way, that such abuses do exist, and the result is that disreputable physicians make many prescriptions, not needed, and the druggist charges an extra price in order to be the better able to pay the prescribing physician a share of the divide.
Mr. BELL would vote for the amendment, but for the fact it is too broad, and would admit of such a defense to be set up in suits for the collection of Doctor's bills.
Mr. FOSTER would also like to vote for the amendment, but it is so broad he feared it would not prevent the evil it intends to.
The amendment was rejected by yeas, 11; nays 23.
Mr. MENZIES moved to strike out Section 15, which provides that the Board shall decide questions touching the reputableness of any Medical College.
Mr. SHAFFER said there must be some standard by which the Board can have some idea of the reputableness of any College.
Mr. BELL favored the motion. Let the Board of each District determine whether the College therein is reputable or not.
Mr. MENZIES supposed this a most delicate question, and gave reasons why his amendment should be passed.
The motion to strike out was agreed to.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to amend by adding to Section 14 a clause declaring that the fact of any practioner advertising his business shall not disqualify or prevent him from the practice of his profession.
Mr. YANCEY objected to the amendment as not pertinent.
Mr. COMSTOCK could not see how any one could object to so harmless an amendment. The purpose of the amendment is simply that the mere fact of advertising shall not render the advertiser incompetent to practice medicine--any code of ethics to the contrary notwithstanding; and Messrs. MENZIES and SPANN favored the amendment citing instances where physicians of great skill and possessors of the highest class of diplomas were tabooed by local physicians simply because of the insertion of an advertisement in newspapers.
Mr. SHAFFER insisted this amendment would open the door to every charlatan and quack to post up bills all over the State, contrary to the code of medical ethics.
Mr. VAN VORHIS declared this objection can not be made a means of preventing the issuing of certificates, because it would bring up the discussion of this feature in medical ethics, etc.
Mr. CHAPMAN considered the amendment germane to the bill, in that it asks the State to set up a standard to regulate the medical profession. They have prescribed their own rules or code of ethics since the day Galien put out his shingle. He believed in allowing physicians and every other person to advertise business in away desirable to the person so advertising. Let each man stand on his own footing and resort to every reputable means to advance his practice; and let us fix the standard, and not allow any tabooing by any rule of professional ethics.
Mr. WOOLLEN opposed the amendment because there is nothing in the bill to prevent an advertising physician from obtaining a certificate from the Board of Examiners. The insertion of the amendment would be emphatically a bid for so-called physicians to flood the country with long advertisements. Such men do the same kind of business done by shysters in the legal profession. The medical profession is different from any other. They come into possession of the secrets of the patient's family, and upon consulting with an advertising physician--and he never knew a respectable one--the reputable physician should impart those secrets to the other, whom he considers disreputable, in order to impart a perfect understanding of the case. And so it happens that reputable physicians refuse to meet in consultation with those deemed disreputable.
Mr. COMSTOCK insisted his amendment would settle the question that an advertising physician shall not, for that reason alone, be refused a certificate to practice his profession. The earnestness with which the friends of the bill oppose this amendment, although insisting it is unnecessary, would indicate there is something more in it than they are willing to acknowledge.
The amendment was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. BUNDY, the fee for examination was reduced from $20 to $5.
The bill was then ordered engrossed.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
A message from the Governor transmitted his appointment (subject to the approval of the Senate) of Samuel Green, of Rush County, as a Trustee for the Asylum of Feeble Minded Children, to succeed James F. Harney, and to serve for three years from April 1, 1881.
On motion by Mr. BELL, it was referred to the Committee on Executive Appointments.
THE CIVIL CODE.
Pursuant to order adopted day before yesterday morning, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the civil code bill [S. 271], concerning procedure in civil cases, commencing at Section 860.
Mr. VAN VORHIS moved to amend and Mr. HEFFRON moved to strike out the closing sentence of Section 455. He said: "That is unnecessarily incumbering the record. Powers of attorney frequently include many powers, and this clause would require the attachment of the entire power of attorney to the judgment."
Mr. COMSTOCK could see no great dfficulty in complying with the requirement of the clause proposed to be stricken out. He moved to reject the amendments.
This motion was rejected.
Mr. Bell offered a substitute requiring such fact to be noted on the margin of the execution and the power of attorney to be recorded in the Recorder's office.
Mr. LANGDON opposed the amendment. It would cause a useless incumbering of records.
Mr. SPANN considered the Recorder's office the proper place for preserving these records, unless an extra book be provided for use in the Clerk's office.
Mr. BELL--The object is to protect innocent purchasers, and the record should into the Recorder's office.
Mr.FOSTER noticing that no two lawyers were agreeing in their speeches on this section, he believed it better to let the section stand.
The substitute was agreed to.
Mr. GRUBBS offered an amendment to the seventh subdivision of Section 353 of acts of 1867 so as to make provision for the relation of guardian.
Mr. HENRY thought the section should be further amended in reference to the competency as a witness of the guardian.
Mr. BELL conceived every case referred to in the amendment is already covered by the bill.
Mr. VIEHE referred to a subsequent provision having reference to the competency of the guardian as a witness.
The amendment was rejected.
page: 218[View Page 218]Mr. MENZIES moved to strike out the subdivision of Section 10 because of the uncertainty of the party establishing his side of the issue by a preponderance of the evidence. It would permit the doing indirectly what can not be done directly.
Mr.LANGDON understood the policy heretofore has been to allow all proper evidence of all parties to go to the Jury. The motion, if agreed to, would leave the law too broad. In many Courts, in such cases, the rule that maintains is not uniform, whereas the rule should be fixed and absolute.
Mr. MENZIES knew of no rule of procedure that works perfect justice. The old law has worked hardships, but has been a good rule. The effect of this section is to open wide the door for witnesses against a dead man's estate.
Mr. LANGDON contended the bill as it now stands requires material points to be substantiated by the claimant, and is a much better protection than the discretion of a nisi prius Court. It is fairer to a dead man's estate, and fairer to the claimant.
Mr. BELL'S judgment was that it is better to adopt the amendment and add to the following section words allowing the Court to require testimony to be given.
The motion to strike out was agreed to.
Mr. MENZIES (for Mr. Grubbs, who occupied the Chair,) moved to amend by adding a proviso that no agent, in making a contract with a decedent, shall be a competent witness as to matters occuring previous to death, etc.
Mr. VIEHE opposed the amendment.
Mr. CHAPMAN--If the object of an investigation is to get at the truth, as it ought to be, the whole transaction should be brought out. The amendent would serve as a mere trap to get out a portion of facts in a certain case.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. VAN VORHIS believed all the difficulty that has grown out of expect testimony has arisen fromn the construction placed upon the word "opinion," as in contra distinction from scientific facts. He moved to strike that word out of Section 457. It is the duty of every citizen to testify as to the facts connected with any trade, art, or profession, but when an expert is called upon to render service, such as rendering an opinion on an association of facts, he ought to be paid extra for it.
Mr. BELL doubted the power of a Court to call for an opinion without compensation, and moved to amend the amendment so the Court may make allowance.
Mr. LANGDON opposed the amendments and favored the text of the bill.
Mr. SHAFFER favored the amendment.
Mr. WOOLLEN also favored of the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. SPANN hoped the amendmendmet would not pvevail. No one should stand upon a higher plane in a Court of Justice than a farmer or any other man. No professional man should be allowed to rear back upon his dignity and refuse to give, without extra pay, an opinion, just because he has obtained knowledge of a certain kind by study or otherwise.
Mr. BRISCO thought the provision in the present law a very wise one. He would compel gentlemen experts, who stood upon their constional rights, to testify as well as any other class of citizens and for the same pay. There should be no distinction before the law as to the pay of witnesses, and all should be compelled to testify in the Courts of Justice upon the same footing.
Mr. VAN VORHIS insisted the only object of his amendment, was to eliminate the word "opinion" from this section, which word has been so construed as to cause much trouble in the Courts.
The amenedment to the amendmemt was rejected, as was also the amendment.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend the fifth clause of Section 211 by providing that actions on written contracts hereafter executed to pay money shall be commenced in ten years. He said there are but two States where the limitation upon instruments of this kind is fifteen years; in a majority of States it is six years.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. COMSTOCK offered an amendment so Section 368 to rectify improper notification of any party to a suit, pending which--
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
