People v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 22 December 1925
• Docket Number: No. 141.,141.
• Citation: People v. Lewis, 233 Mich. 240, 206 N.W. 553 (Mich. 1925)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. LEWIS.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

233 Mich. 240

206 N.W. 553

PEOPLE

v.LEWIS.

No. 141.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 22, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cenesee County; Edward D. Black, Judge.

Blake D. Lewis was convicted of practicing medicine without a certificate of registration or license, and he appeals. On exceptions before sentence. Affirmed.

Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.George W. Cook, Neithercut & Neithercut, Farley & Selby, and M. Merle Sheppard, all of Flint, for appellant.

William R. Roberts, Pros. Atty., of Flint, for the People.

WIEST, J.

Defendant is a graduate of the Palmer School of Chiropractic. Without registration or license he opened an office in the city of Flint, and, upon examination of a fake patient, an employee in the city health department, opined she had a floating kidney and advised that a course of his adjustments, costing $25, would help her constipation. For this he was charged with and convicted of the crime of practicing medicine without a certificate of registration or license. He prosecutes review on exceptions before sentence, contending that the Medical Practive Act (G. L. 1915, § 6724 et seq.), requiring registration and fixing qualifications of all persons practicing medicine is unconstitutional, unreasonable, arbitrary, and violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, in the following particulars:

‘(1) Requires the applicant to pass an examination on medical subjects which have no relation to their school of practice.

‘(2) No chiropractic school teaches these subjects and in understanding and knowledge of these medical subjects is unnecessary, and unused in their school of practice.

‘(3) That the effect and purpose of these requirements are prohibitive and not regulatory.

‘(4) That the evil purpose of the statute was to annihilate and eventually destroy the established school of drugless healers known as chiropractors.

‘(5) That the statute of the state of Michigan, which requires chiropractors to pass an examination before a board of medical men whose profession is opposed to the system of chiropractic adjustment, is arbitrary, prohibitive, and unreasonable.’

Counsel for defendant insist the statute operates to prohibit chiropractors from obtaining a license, because it requires them to pass an examination before a medical board in subjects which no school of chiropractic teaches, and which are not used by them in the practice of their profession. We take it that defendant desired to practice a system of treatment of human ailments or diseases without the use of drugs. If so, is it unreasonable to require him to pass an examination before a board of qualified experts in the subjects of anatomy, histology, embryology, physiology, chemistry, bacteriology, pathology, diagnosis, hygiene, and public health?

It is within legislative power to require persons practicing treatment of human ailments or diseases without the use of drugs to possess knowledge of organic structure, intimate structure of tissues, embryonic evolution, functions of the body, molecular and atomic structure of bodies, micro-organisms, science of diseases, morbid processes observable in various diseases of organs, recognition of disease by its symptoms, science of health, and efforts made and measures and precautions deemed advisable for the promotion and protection of public health. This power has been exercised, and the regulation provided must stand, unless violative of rights guaranteed by the state or the federal Constitution. We find no limitation upon the subject in the state Constitution. We can conceive of no deprivation of the equal protection of the law in requiring drugless healers to understand the subjects mentioned. The fact defendant has not received instruction in some of these subjects offers no objection to the validity of the law. We decline to indict the medical profession of design to annihilate the system of chiropractic adjustment and the Legislature of supinely surrendering the lawmaking power in aid thereof. It may be that no chiropractic school teaches all the subjects mentioned, and chiropractors feel that a knowledge thereof is unnecessary and unused in their school of practice, but this affords no reason for requiring the Legislature, in recognition thereof, to enact no law not in conformity therewith.

While we think all questions presented fall within the opinions of this court in Locke v. Circuit Judge, 184 Mich. 535, 151 N. W. 623, and People v. Rose, 218 Mich. 642, 188 N. W. 417, we have examined the points anew, and find the great weight of authority against every contention advanced. The cases cited by defendant are clearly distinguishable from or so contrary to our former decisions and the overwhelming weight of authority as to render review thereof unnecessary. Some of the authorities in line with our former decisions we will mention.

In State v. Barnes, 119 S. C. 213, 112 S. E. 62, it was said:

‘The main ground upon which the alleged capricious and unreasonable features of the act are urged is that the chiropractor is required to familiarize himself with certain subjects which have no place in his branch of the healing art, such as anatomy, physiology, hygiene, toxicology, minor surgery, medical jurisprudence, pediatrics, bacteriology, and pathology.’

This was well answered:

‘Naturally the first step in the remedial process is diagnosis to find out what is the matter with the patient. To a layman's view, a familiarity with most, if not all, of the subjects named, is essential to a proper discharge of this initial process, and equally so to the administration of the proposed remedy. Whether they are or not, however, is not a judicial question. It has been so declared by the legislative authority, based, we must assume, upon bona fide scientific grounds, and the requirement does not present such evidence of caprice or unreasonableness as to justify a destruction of a plan devised for the protection of the public.’

In Harvey v. State, 96 Neb. 786, 148 N. W. 924, it was urged that the state--

‘may not prohibit the exercise and practice of chiropractic by refusing to provide an examination in the curriculum taught in the best schools and colleges of chiropractic-those branches deemed essential and put in operation by leading chiropractors-and compelling the chiropractor to procure a diploma from a medical college and take an examination in a curriculum of some one of the sects of drug medication.’

In ruling against this point, the court quoted with approval the following from Little v. State, 60 Neb. 749, 84 N. W. 248,51 L. R. A. 717:

‘It is insisted that the statute under consideration is void because it is prohibitive in its scope and effect. The construction of the act which counsel places upon it we are unwilling to adopt. The statute undertakes to regulate, and it is not prohibitive in its nature. Any one who has complied with the provisions may practice medicine in this state. It is prohibitive only as to those who have not been duly licensed by the state board of health to practice the art of healing.’

No school may fix a standard of education, and thereby entitle its graduates to practice any branch of the healing arts, regardless of legislation, and no graduate can of right demand that legislation accord with only what he has been taught. The law recognizes chiropractic adjustments or treatments, and fixes the standard of knowledge deemed essential to a proper practice thereof. The Legislature took a comprehensive view of the public welfare in regulating the practice of medicine. This practice is well stated in our former decisions and in Commonwealth v. Zimmerman, 221 Mass. 184, 108 N. W. 893, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 858:

‘Medicine relates to the prevention, cure, and alleviation of disease, the repair of injury, or treatment of abnormal or...