[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 18, 1905


JAMA. 1905;XLIV(11):880. doi:10.1001/jama.1905.02500380044010

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


We publish this week the Missouri decision against osteopathy. As the decision covers many points of direct interest to physicians, we believe it is unnecessary to apologize for publishing the entire text. It is full of information, not only as it relates to the osteopaths, but as it affects physicians in other ways. Especially is the subject of the right of a witness of one school of medicine to give evidence in a case against another school covered as it has never been covered before, so far as we know. The anomalous position that osteopathy occupies is well shown up in the decision. The osteopaths are practitioners of medicine, and they are not; it all depends on their point of view. The decision, further, is of value because it contains references to decisions that affect not only the various points brought up in this particular case, but those that bear

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