State v. Beck

• Decision Date: 08 May 1898
• Citation: 43 A. 366,21 R.I. 288
• Parties: STATE v. BECK.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

43 A. 366

21 R.I. 288

STATE

v. BECK.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 8, 1898.

Horace P. Beck was indicted for violation of the dentistry laws. Heard on demurrer to plea.

Willard B. Tanner, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Frank F. Nolan, for defendant.

TILLINGHAST, J. The indictment charges, in substance, that the defendant did unlawfully practice dentistry in Newport, on the 1st day of August, 1898, without first having obtained a certificate from the board of registration in dentistry, and without first having caused his name and place of business to be registered with said board. The defendant has filed a special plea in bar to said indictment, in which he sets up, in brief, that, at the time aforesaid, he held a certificate in due form, from the state board of health, that he was qualified to practice medicine and surgery, by reason of the possession by him of a diploma from a reputable and legally chartered college, indorsed by said board of health, by virtue of which he was qualified to practice medicine and surgery in all its branches upon all parts of the human body, including the teeth. To this plea the attorney general has demurred, on the ground that a certificate from the state board of health, authorizing the defendant to practice medicine and surgery, as provided in Gen. Laws R. I. c. 165, does not authorize him to practice dentistry, without having first obtained a certificate from the board of registration in dentistry, and otherwise qualifying himself to practice dentistry, in accordance with the provisions of Gen. Laws R. I. c. 155, as amended by Pub. Laws R. I. c. 470.

The question presented for our decision, under the pleadings, therefore, is whether the defendant had the right, by virtue of his authority to practice medicine and surgery, to practice dentistry. The answer to this question depends upon the construction to be given to the statute regulating the practice of dentistry, taken in connection with that regulating the practice of medicine, as, independent of these statutes, there can be no doubt of the right of the defendant to practice dentistry.

The first law regulating the practice of dentistry in this state was passed on June 1, 1888. See Pub. Laws R. I. c."712. At that time there was no law regulating the practice of medicine. Gen. Laws R. I. c. 155, § 4, as amended by Pub. Laws R. I. c. 470, § 1, passed May 21, 1897, which is the same, in effect, as section 4 in the original act, provides that "all persons who hereafter intend to enter the practice of dentistry in this state, shall appear before said board and be examined with reference to their knowledge and skill in dentistry; and to such as pass a satisfactory examination, certificates to that effect, signed by the president and secretary of the board, shall be issued; and thereupon the names of such persons receiving certificates as aforesaid shall be registered with said board." Section 6, as amended by Pub. Laws R. I. c. 470, § 3, prescribes a penalty for practicing, or attempting to practice, dentistry in violation of the provisions of the act. On May 16, 1895, the general assembly passed an act regulating the practice of medicine (see Pub. Laws R. I. c. 1353), said act now constituting Gen. Laws R. I. c. 165. This act makes it unlawful for any person to practice medicine or surgery, in any of its branches, without first exhibiting and registering under oath, in the town or city clerk's office in the town or city where he resides, his authority for so practicing medicine, as prescribed in the act, together with his age, address, place of birth, and the school of medicine to which he proposes to belong. The authority to practice medicine and surgery, under said act, is a certificate from the state board of health. The evident purpose of the general assembly, in the passage of the act relating to the practice of dentistry, was to protect the public from being imposed upon by persons who, while holding themselves out as competent to extract, clean, or repair teeth, or replace them by artificial ones, yet, from want of instruction and skill in the art, were wholly unfit to perform such a delicate and highly important function. See State v. Mylod, 20 R. I. —, 40 Atl. 753, as to the object of said chapter 165. It is matter of common knowledge that, before the passage of said act, the merest novice in the art was frequently employed to extract and operate upon the teeth, to the unnecessary discomfort, and sometimes to the permanent injury, of his patient. These persons were not physicians, and, as a rule, had little or no scientific knowledge of the human body, and the only knowledge which they possessed of the art of dentistry was that which they had acquired by a meager and haphazard practice. Such knowledge, while it might have been considered sufficient in the days of our grandfathers, is wholly inadequate for present demands; for while dentistry, as an independent vocation, may have had a humble and comparatively recent origin, yet it has now become a very important branch of medical science. See Rehfuss, Dental Jur. 34, 42. As said by Brace, J., in State v. Fisher, 119 Mo. 356, 24 S. W. 170: "The fact that this branch of the mescal profession has grown to such proportions as to have its own independent colleges, and to confer its own degrees, and that it has become necessary that its practice should be regulated by statute, indicates the importance of the exercise of its functions to the public welfare." See Rehfuss, Dental Jur. tit. "History of Dental Legislation," 205.

From what we have thus said, it would seem clear that the reason for the passage of said chapter 155, and the amendments thereto, does not apply to the practice of dentistry by regular physicians. A "physician" is one who practices the art of healing disease and of preserving health; a prescriber of remedies for sickness and disease. See 4 Cent. Dict. Ha is presumed to be familiar with the anatomy of the human body in its entirety; to understand the science of physiology and the laws of hygiene; and to be able to minister, as far as may be, to the relief of pain, disease, and physical ailments of all sorts and kinds whatsoever. And, while it is true that many physicians devote themselves entirely to some branch of the medical profession for which they have made special preparation, yet the fact that they have first qualified themselves generally for the practice of medicine and surgery in all its branches, and obtained a license to pursue such practice, must be held to entitle them to operate upon the teeth and jaw, as well as upon other parts of the human organism, unless the statute now under consideration prohibits them. By the strict terms of said statute, taken by itself, it doubtless does prohibit physicians, as well as all other persons, from practicing dentistry without first obtaining the required certificate, as the inhibition is general, and no...