[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.161.128.52. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
December 21, 1901

THE OHIO DECISION ON OSTEOPATHY.

JAMA. 1901;XXXVII(25):1683. doi:10.1001/jama.1901.02470510039008
Abstract

It would appear from the newspaper comments that the alleged great victory of osteopathy in the recent Ohio decision,1 which holds that its practice is comprehended in the statutory definition of the practice of medicine, may prove a boomerang after all. The decision pronounces against discrimination, and therefore none in their special favor can be allowed. As they are not authorized to administer drugs or perform surgical operations, they may be exempted from examination in those departments, but there would be no good excuse for their being relieved from the examination required in other branches. The fact that the Ohio medical practice statute does not specify the number of years that a candidate for license to practice medicine must have attended lectures, leaving that to the board, while this is specified for the osteopaths, is considered as discrimination by the court and therefore void. This does not exempt the

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