페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

In prosecutions under the ordinance the burden of proof as to registration is on the person charged (ib., s. 47).

Every prosecution must be begun within six months from the alleged offence (ib., s. 49).

Any person may be prosecutor or complainant (ib., s. 51).

EVIDENCE.—In all cases where proof of registration under this ordinance is made, a printed or other copy of the register, certified under the hand of the registrar, for the time being, shall be sufficient evidence of all persons (sic!) in lieu of the production of the original register; any certificate on such printed or other copy of the register, signed by any person in his capacity of registrar of the council, under this ordinance is prima facie evidence that such person is such registrar, without any proof of his signature or of his being in fact such registrar (ib., S. 48).

STAY.—The council by an order signed by the president and under its seal may stay proceedings in any prosecution under this ordinance where it is deemed expedient (ib., s. 50).

DEFINITION.- The words "legally qualified medical prac. titioner," or other words implying legal recognition of any person as a medical practitioner, in any ordinance or law applied to this Territory, mean a person registered under this ordinance (ib., s. 53).

COUNCIL; ADDITIONAL POWERS.—The council may by by-law delegate to the registrar the power to admit and to register any person having the necessary qualifications entitling him to be registered by the council; it may at any time direct the name of any person improperly registered to be erased from the register (ib., s. 55).

The council may from time to time make, alter, or amend and repeal rules and regulations for the promotion of medical and surgical knowledge (ib., s. 56).

HOMEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS.—These may be registered under this ordinance on complying with the terms of sec. 34 (ib., s. 57).

RETURN TRANSACTIONS COUNCIL RESPECTING CHARGES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. -The council is required to make immediate return to the Commissioner of Yukon Territory in council showing all orders, regulations, by-laws, or other transactions relating to charges for professional services by members of the college (ib., s. 58).

OF

OF

FEES. -For registration under any clause of the ordinance $100 (ib., s. 54).

From each member of the college, to the registrar of his deputy to receive it, an annual fee not less than $5 nor more than $20, as may be determined by by-law of the council, toward the general expenses of the college; deemed a debt, recoverable with costs in the name of the college in the territorial court (ib., s. 33).

For examination under subsec. (c) of sec. 32, to the registrar $100, for the expenses of the examining board (ib., s. 33, c).

APPENDIX

TO SYNOPSIS OF THE LAWS REGULATING THE PRACTICE

OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY.

CHANGES IN THE STATUTES.—The New York State Library, Albany, N. Y., issues annual bulletins containing and entitled Summary and Index of Legislation and Review of Legislation. The annual changes in the medical laws throughout the United States are there noted under the title Public Health, State Control of Medicine, catalogue number 944. The allied subjects of optometry, osteopatby, etc., have the following catalogue numbers. The subject of nursing is treated under catalogue No. 1,575.

Note: The activity of the legislatures in changing the laws on this subject was mentioned in the introductory note (page 178 n. 2); it is illustrated by the fact that the most of the following changes in the statutes were made and published too late to be inserted in their proper places in the foregoing synopsis.

ARKANSAS. (See supra, p. 187.)

After this work was in press, a “Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas,” by William F. Kirby, authorized by the legislature, was published, dated 1904. The medical law is in secs. 5,2315,245, the law respecting malpractice and unprofessional conduct is in secs. 5,246–5,250, the law respecting osteopathy in secs. 5,251-5,260, of ch. 109 of this Digest. The act authorizing the Digest and its publication (May 20th, 1903) does not, in terms, give it the force of law; the Digest does not change the terms of the law as abstracted in the above synopsis, though the sequence of the sections is somewhat changed. We have therefore adhered to the laws as they were enacted by the legislature, instead of referring to the sections of this Digest.

One member of each board is required by the law to be selected from each congressional district in the State.

CALIFORNIA. (See supra, p. 194.) (Privileged Communications, see p. 101.) The California law of privileged communications, as contained in the text, has been declared unconstitutional (owing to the method of its adoption). The law, as published in the Code of Civil Procedure of 1903, is, it seems, not open to the same objection, and this law designates the person whose testimony is privileged as a licensed physician or surgeon.

(Medical Laws, see supra, p. 194). The words “ some suitable graduate in medicine” in the county government act designating the qualifications of a county physician mean one legally licensed to practise medicine and surgery under the laws of this State (though he may not have received a diploma from a medical college). People v. Eichelroth (Supr. Ct. of Cal., 1889), 20 Pac. R., 364; 2 L. R. A., 770.

Dentistry is but a special branch of the medical profession; the power of the State to regulate as to both in the interests of the public is equally clear. Ex parte Whitley, 77 Pac. R., 879 (Supr. Ct. of Cal., 1904) an exemption in favor of those practising at the time of the passage of the act is not unconstitutional (ib.) (citing State v. Randolph, 23 Or., 74; State o. Creditor, 44 Kan., 565; ex parte Spinney, 10 Nev., 323; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich., 6; State e. Green, 112 Ind., 462; State v. Vandersluis, 42 Minn., 129; Wert o. Clutter, 37 Ohio St., 348; 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed., 781, and distinguishing State 0. Hinman, 65 N. H., 103; State v. Pennoyer, 65 N. H., 113; Scholle o. State, 90 Md., 740). Such legislation is neither special nor class, and does not violate any provision of State or federal constitution (ib.). Such a law might limit practitioners to college graduates (ib.) (cf. p. 319, n. 1). The power conferred on the board to pass on the reputability of a college is not judicial power in the constitutional sense (ib.). Such a law is not unconstitutional because such power may be arbitrarily exercised (ib.). What is reputable in a college must be determined from the standpoint of men of scientific attain. ments (ib.) (citing Wisconsin o. Chittenden, 112 Wis., 558).

COLORADO. (Superseding supra, pp. 203, 204, 205.)

NOTE: After the abstract of the former law, (see p. 203,) was cast for printing, the legislature passed the following amendments, approved April 20th, 1905. This law supersedes that on pp. 203, 204, 205, except as below indicated.

REPEAL.-The Act of 1905 does not in terms repeal the whole former medical law (supra, p. 203 et seq.). It does, however, so amend it that it would seem that the law of 1905 entirely supersedes the said former law. See infra p. 685, title REPEAL.

BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS. —The board consists of nine members appointed by the Governor. The members of the board are now required to be practising physicians of integrity and ability, residents of the State, and duly licensed to practise med icine in the State, and to be graduates of medical schools of high

« 이전계속 »