The Medical Practice Act of Indiana

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The present Medical Practice Act of Indiana will require early and liberal amendments along the suggested lines to remain a useful and forceful law.

“In conclusion, I believe it is not too much to say that the present Medical Practice Act of this State will require early and liberal amendments on the lines suggested, in order to be continued as a useful and forceful law on our statute books.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The public needs protection against shams and quackery.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The medical profession should maintain public confidence and esteem.

May combine two claims.

Section 7 of the Act does not eliminate itinerant pretenders, street vendors of nostrums, or female peddlers of devices and drugs intended for nefarious uses.

“It is certainly unfortunate for the people that Sec¬ tion 7 of the Act does not do away with the itinerant pretender of wonderful cures, and of the flambeau and night noises of the street vender of uncertain nos¬ trums, and of female peddlers of devices and drugs intended for nefarious uses.”

• cites Section 7Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

It is irrational to suppose that persons as illiterate as these examinations have shown some to be could intelligently read any medical work.

“It is irrational and unreasonable to suppose that per¬ sons as illiterate as these examinations have proven some to be, could intelligently read any medical work.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Under the current Act, a State Board member who files formal information to start legal proceedings is frequently exposed to unpleasant notoriety or scandal and is almost sure to be accused of malicious persecution of a competitor by newspapers and the public.

“In its present state, the member of the State Board of Medical Examiners who files the for¬ mal information, to set the legal machinery in motion, is frequently exposed to unpleasant notoriety, if not scandal, for instituting proceedings against a compe¬ ting practitioner; he is almost sure to be charged with malicious persecution of a competitor, by the news¬ papers and by the unthinking public”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

All reputable medical practitioners in the future will possess a diploma from a respectable medical college, or a medical education that would obtain one if sought.

“Let it be presumed that all repu¬ table medical practitioners in the future will possess a diploma from a respectable medical college, or pos¬ sess a medical education that will obtain one for him if he seeks it.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The Act is silent on the elementary educational qualifications of licentiates.

“It seems strange to me that the Act which under¬ takes to curtail the defects of persons who may be¬ come practitioners of medicine in the State is strik¬ ingly silent as to the elementary educational qualifi¬ cations of licentiates.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

If enforcement were made inquisitorial, preferably in the grand jury room, it would eliminate the unpleasant notoriety and possible injury to the Act's operations.

“If the enforcement of the law were made in¬ quisitional, in the grand jury room if possible, it would do away with unpleasant notoriety, if not posi¬ tive injury to the operations of the Act.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The Act's requirement that applicants declare a school affiliation tends to foster medical sectarianism, narrow thinking, prejudice, and to prevent unification of scientific investigation.

“It tends to foster medical sectarianism, narrowness of thought and encrusted prejudice, and to prevent the unifica¬ tion of scientific investigation.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Tolerating the practice of itinerant pretenders causes the medical profession to lose public confidence and esteem.

“Tolerate the practice of such men, and little by little the profes¬ sion at large suffers in public confidence and esteem.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

A licensed physician in Indiana has the right to practice anywhere in the State, may have one residence for licensing, and may maintain multiple offices.

“I think a licensed physician has a right to practice anywhere in the State.He can have but one residence at which he is required to take out a license, but I see no rea¬ son in the law why he could not maintain any num¬ ber of offices if he feels so disposed.”

• cites Attorney General KetchamNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites State Board Report, 1897, p. 427Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The State Board of Medical Examiners could easily assess an applicant's character and qualifications if materia medica and therapeutics were omitted from the statute.

“The State Board of Medical Examiners could easily estimate the char¬ acter and qualifications of an applicant for a license with this omission.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Section 2 of the Indiana Medical Practice Act makes possession of a diploma the deciding factor for a person's qualification to practice medicine.

“Taking up Section 2 of the Act, I object to the diploma in the possession of any one as his personal property being made the deciding power of his quali¬ fication for practice.”

• cites Section 2Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.