[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
April 10, 1948


JAMA. 1948;136(15):986-987. doi:10.1001/jama.1948.02890320030009

In 1939 THE JOURNAL called attention to a case1 in which the Supreme Court of Kansas entered a judgment ousting an osteopath from the practice of medicine and surgery and decreeing that his license to practice osteopathy permitted him to practice manipulative surgery but that he was not licensed or authorized to prescribe or administer drugs as remedial aids. The Kansas court said that the phrase in the osteopathic act which authorized persons licensed under it to practice osteopathy "as taught and practiced in legally incorporated colleges of osteopathy in good repute" could be construed only in this way. The court said further that if osteopathy had abandoned its fundamental opposition to drug therapy and operative surgery, as of the date of the enactment of the act, 1913, that fact never had been recognized by the legislature of the state of Kansas. The court next said that the statutes of

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview