The interference with personal liberty is the usual argument against any proposed new sanitary or moral regulation. It is the pet plea of the quack as well as of the doggery keeper. The unthinking crowd are easily caught by its specious sound, and even those who claim culture and enlightenment are sometimes found using it in advocacy of measures that without this appeal to their prejudice they would repudiate. The word liberty has become a sort of national fetish and is used most by those who have the least idea of its true significance or those who from interested motives find it convenient for them to do so. There is no civil liberty without restrictions; otherwise we would have only anarchy.
These points are well brought out by Dr. Floyd M. Crandall in a recent article1 in which he especially reviews the arguments adduced by the osteopaths and their
THE NEW YORK OSTEOPATHY BILL. JAMA. 1902;XXXVIII(6):402–403. doi:10.1001/jama.1902.02480060040005
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: