IN these days of so much agitation for compulsory "preventive medicine," we find some few things which need explanation. The first of these in pertinence would seem to be, Why this furore, this zeal for the welfare of the public in general, in view of the fact that there is apparently no public demand for the laws which are sought to be passed. The agitation for this wholesale conservation of the public health is entirely on the part of the doctors, and so far as the plain people can see, much of the legislation proposed is strictly for the purpose of making it impossible for any one, regardless of what his personal belief or preference in such matters may be, to secure help in case of sickness except through the dominant school of medicine.
We have before us The Portsmouth (N. H.) Times of May 18, in which mention is made of the annual meeting of the New Hampshire Medical Society, "which brought to Concord," says the Times, "a majority of the allopathic physicians of the state." Among other business transacted was the appointment of "a committee on public policy and legislation," and it was stated that "this committee will seek from the Legislature of 1915, among other things, ... a revised medical practice statute." It may be recalled that at the session of the 1913 Legislature a committee of this same society tried unsuccessfully to obtain "a revised medical practice statute" for which there was no demand except from the physicians themselves, and which was so drawn that if it had become a law every person afflicted with disease, no matter how great his need, would either have to employ an M.D. or go without help.
It was openly avowed, moreover, that the purpose of this "revised medical practice statute" was to prevent the practice of Christian Science, and this was made entirely clear in the debate. It is worth while asking what would have become of the thousands of people who have been healed of all manner of disease by Christian Science, after medical doctors had failed to cure them, if such a "revised medical practice statute" had been on the books. We also note with considerable interest that "attention was called at the meeting to the probability that bills would be introduced . . . for licensing osteopaths and chiropractors which the association would feel called upon to oppose."
