[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]
February 8, 1902


JAMA. 1902;XXXVIII(6):402-403. doi:10.1001/jama.1902.02480060040005

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