Courts may Compel Granting of License.—A person who is qualified and complies with reasonable rules of a licensing body, can compel such body to license him. This was held to be the law in the case of The People ex rel. Bartlett v. The Medical Society of the County of Erie, which is also an important authority in respect to a vexed question of medical ethics. It appeared in that case that under the general laws of New York in regard to the organization of medical societies, a medical society had refused to receive as a member a person otherwise qualified, because he had advertised in the public prints a certain cure, including a mechanical appliance used in treating throat troubles; it being forbidden by the code of ethics of the American Medical Association, which the County Medical Society had adopted as one of its by-laws, that a physician or surgeon should advertise. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York held that this constituted no defence to a proceeding instituted by such person to obtain a mandamus compelling the society to admit him to membership, if otherwise qualified.[156]
It has also been decided that a medical society had no right to make a by-law establishing a fixed fee-bill, or tariff of charges, and providing for the expulsion of a member charging at a different rate than that prescribed. Such a by-law was declared unreasonable and void in the case of People v. Medical Society of Erie County, 24 Barb., 570.
The effect of these decisions was, so far as they affect the validity of by-laws, attempted to be avoided in that State by Chapter 445 of Laws of 1866, by which it is expressly enacted that the county medical societies of the State of New York may make such rules and by-laws as they see fit, “not inconsistent with the laws of said State, and may enforce them by expulsion or other discipline.” It may be considered doubtful whether this legislation can accomplish its purpose in the case of the adoption of a by-law void as against public policy.
No Particular Schools Recognized by the Courts.—The general trend of the decisions in all the States, whenever any questions in reference to schools of medicine have been before our courts, is to avoid recognizing any particular system or school. The theory of the New York courts upon this subject is well expressed by the liberal-minded and learned Judge Daly in the New York Court of Common Pleas, in the case of Corsi v. Maretzek, 4 E. D. Smith, 1-5. In that case it was claimed that a certificate of incapacity because of sickness, given by a “homœopathic” physician to an opera-singer, was not binding. It was argued that the employment of a “homœopathic” physician under the contract did not fulfil a provision thereof which required the event of the singer’s sickness to be certified to by “a doctor,” to be appointed by the director.
The Court said: “The system pursued by the practitioner is immaterial. The law has nothing to do with particular systems. Their relative merit may become the subject of inquiry, when the skill or ability of a practitioner in any given case is to be passed upon as a matter of fact. But the law does not, and cannot, supply any positive rules for the interpretation of medical science. It is not one of those certain or exact sciences in which truths become established and fixed, but is essentially progressive in its nature, enlarging with the growth of human experience, and subject to those changes and revolutions incident to any branch of human inquiry, the laws of which are not fully ascertained. The labors of the anatomist, the physiologist, and the chemist have contributed an immense storehouse of facts; but the manner in which this knowledge is to be applied in the treatment and cure of diseases has been, and will probably continue to be, open to diversity of opinion. No one system of practice has been uniformly followed, but physicians from the days of Hippocrates have been divided into opposing sects and schools. The sects of the dogmatists and the empirics divided the ancient world for centuries, until the rise of the methodics, who, in their turn, gave way to innumerable sects. Theories of practice, believed to be infallible in one age, have been utterly rejected in another. For thirteen centuries Europe yielded to the authority of Galen. He was implicitly followed—his practice strictly pursued. Everything that seemed to conflict with his precepts was rejected; and yet, in the revolutions of medical opinion, the works of this undoubtedly great man were publicly burned by Paracelsus and his disciples; and for centuries following, the medical world was divided between the Galenists and the chemists, until a complete ascendency over both was obtained by the sect of the Vitalists. This state of things has been occasioned by the circumstance that medical practitioners have often been more given to the formation of theories upon the nature of disease and the mode of its treatment, than to that careful observation and patient accumulation of facts, by which, in other sciences, the phenomena of nature have been unravelled. I am far from undervaluing the great benefits conferred upon mankind by the study of medicine, and have no wish to minister to any vulgar prejudice against a useful and learned profession, but it is not to be overlooked that, as an art, it has been characterized, in a greater degree, by fluctuations of opinion as to its principles and the mode of its practice, than, perhaps, any other pursuit. That it has been distinguished by the constant promulgation and explosion of theories, that it has alternated between the advancement of new doctrines and the revival of old ones, and that its professors in every age have been noted for the tenacity with which they have clung to opinions, and the unanimity with which they have resisted the introduction of valuable discoveries. They still continue to disagree in respect to the treatment of diseases as old as the human race; and at the present day, when great advances have been made in all departments of knowledge, a radical and fundamental difference divides the allopathist from the followers of Hahnemann, to say nothing of those who believe in the sovereign instrumentality of water.
“In fact, nothing comparatively is known of the philosophy of disease. Its eradication or cure, where the result of human agency is, in the great majority of instances, attributable rather to the careful observation, judgment and experience of the particular practitioner, than to the application of general or established methods available to all. The popular axiom, that ‘doctors differ,’ is as true now as it ever was, and as long as it continues to be so, it is impossible for the law to recognize any class of practitioners, or the followers of any particular system or method of treatment, as exclusively entitled to be regarded as doctors. In adverting to the conflicting views and differences of opinion, that exist and have ever existed in the practice of the healing art, it is not to call in question the value of learned, skilful and experienced physicians, but merely to show the error of attempting, in the present state of medical science, to recognize, as matter of law, any one system of practice, or of declaring that the practitioner who follows a particular system is a doctor, and that one who pursues a different method is not.” And see also White v. Carroll, 42 N. Y., 161; Ordronaux’ “Jurisprudence of Medicine,” 27.
This decision was prior to the statute of 1874 and the provisions of the Penal Code before noted. Since those statutes, it is a misdemeanor to practise except as permitted by the provisions of those statutes.
IN NEW YORK AND ELSEWHERE PRACTITIONER WITHOUT LICENSE CANNOT SUE AND RECOVER FOR HIS FEES.
Since the passage of the New York Act of 1844 (Laws of 1844, p. 406), there has been no precise statutory provision in that State prohibiting in terms persons who practise physic or surgery without a license, from suing to obtain a recovery for services performed. But this is of little consequence, for, as we have already stated, so practising has been declared to be a misdemeanor by the Penal Code of New York.