Changes

Jump to: navigation, search
m
In June 1869, the Eclectic Medical Society of the State of New York As states adopted medical licensing and registration laws during the Reformed Medical Association 1870s, Irregular physicians faced a dilemma. Irregulars understood that Regulars originally advocated on behalf of the United States organized licensing as a committee to explore holding a nationwide convention for “Physicians belonging way to eliminate Irregulars, but many of them agreed with the New School overall goals of Medicinelicensing. After contacting various state The proliferation of unqualified medical societies practitioners concerned many Homeopaths and eclectic medical colleges, the New York committee proposed holding a convention in Chicago, Illinois in 1870Eclectics. In the fall of 1870, eclectic physicians from throughout the country descended upon Chicago in order to create a national organizationEclectics were especially apprehensive because fraudulent doctors often passed themselves off as Eclectics. Prof. R.S. Newton, a New York physician, informed his audience that “persons connected with the different branches of the profession” hoped their meeting would fail, but he asked This further marginalized the attending doctors to let “nothing but harmony weakest and peace prevailsmallest major medical sect. While Newton’s congregation was quite small, he sought to create an organization Eclectics were disquieted that Eclecticism’s affiliation with outright frauds could represent the interests of an estimated ten thousand American eclectic physicians These undermine their standing as physicians voted to create a new national organization, the National Eclectic Medical Association (NEMA).
For the rest of the Nineteenth Century==What were Eclectic Physicians?==Unlike Homeopaths, NEMA grappled with the growing wave Eclectics did not practice a unified system of states passing medical licensing statutesmedicine. Unlike the American Medical AssociationEclectics were composed of a mixture of lonely local practitioners, botanic physicians, reformed Regulars, NEMA response to medical regulation was hampered its membership’s disagreement over who was an eclectic physician and their widely divergent views on graduates of Eclectic medical regulationschools. The debate over medical regulation exposed the fissures within very name “Eclectics” accurately described the eclectic community. The older physicians who had cobbled together Thomonsonians, disgruntled regulars and differing medical reformers to birth eclectic medicine in 1830s and 1840s were were a discordant group and predisposed to oppose any type governmental regulation. These medical reformers had fought hard to eliminate medical regulation in the first practices of half of the centuryits members. Regulations that had discriminated marginalized and limited their practice rights. They viewed regulars with suspicion and distrusted their motives Sometimes, Eclectics in advocating for medical licensing. Younger physicians, many trained by the original innovators, were National Eclectic Medical Association (NEMA) did not as hostile medical regulationeven appear to agree on who was a legitimate Eclectic physician. Unlike their older colleagues many of them were medical school graduates and they had little in common with the illiterate Thomsonnians who had aligned themselves with While Homeopaths could draw on their teachers in opposition to unified medical regulation. These younger eclectics were concerned with legitimizing eclecticism than in expanding its definition system to include uneducated assemble a more coherent and marginal coordinated approach to medical practitionerslicensing. In order to legitimize eclecticism the second generation of eclectic physicians believed that they had to purge their uneducated colleagues. Instead of fighting regulation, they worked with regulars to pass nonpartisan legislation.
In 1884Eclectics lacked this cohesion when medical licensing became a defining issue. Homeopaths demonstrated their unity and influence when they effectively blocked medical licensing in two of their strongholds, New York and Massachusetts, until the debate over medical licensing exposed these rifts 1890s.<ref> Martin Kaufman, Homeopathy in eclectic medicineAmerica: The Rise and Fall of a Medical Heresy, (Johns Hopkins Press, 1971), 145. </ref> Homeopaths’ influence was derived not only from their larger numbers but also the nature of their patients. Two of Urban and wealthy Homeopathic patients helped their most respected physicians attacked each other mercilessly lobby in an effort state legislatures on their behalf. ==Why was medical licensing a threat to shape NEMA’s policyEclectic physicians== In contrast, Eclectics were in a more precarious position. This heated debate created confusion While they lacked the power to block legislation, they worked with NEMA Regulars and spawned an awkward and ambiguous policy towards Homeopaths to help craft potentially beneficial medical regulationlicensing laws. Instead of presenting a united front and crafting a coherent policy, NEMA made its muddled stance on Many Eclectics understood that medical licensing even haziercould improve Eclecticism’s standing in the medical community by eliminating frauds who hid under their moniker. Local and state societies were left Eclectics faced a stark choice: cooperate with Regulars to draft helpful licensing or attempt to develop their own policies block licensing and they received mixed messages from NEMArisk further marginalization. Whether or not NEMA could influence or shape the direction of Eclectics were increasingly torn on how to proceed with medical legislation is unclear, but due to its befuddled position on licensing it abdicated any leadership position it may have played in this nationwide medical debate.
NEMA was the not first attempt by the physicians from the eclectic medical sect to create a national organization. In 1848Even though Homeopaths had more influence in state legislatures than Eclectics, a group they were faced with many of physicians from the “Eclectic Reform School” met in Cincinnati at the Eclectic Medical Institute for the National Convention of Eclectic Physicianssame choices. By 1850In states where Homeopaths could kill licensing, the National Convention had morphed into a new national organizationthey did, the National Eclectic Medical Association. It is perhaps unsurprising that but in 1848most states, regular physicians formed the American Medical Association (AMA). Unlike the AMA, the first NEMA failed they were forced to survivecompromise with Regulars on licensing. By 1856In many ways, the chairman of debate within Eclecticism mirrored the Committee on the State and Progress of Medical Reform complained that an insufficient number of eclectic physicians were attending NEMA’s convention. During the organization’s last conventiondebate in Homeopathy, but the Vice-President of NEMA decried Eclectic debate is noteworthy because leaders within the “apathy manifested by Eclectics movement publicly attacked each other in not sustaining their organizationsbattle over licensing.
It is unclear what killed NEMA, although Joseph Haller cited ==What was the Illinois Medical Practice Act?== The passage and implementation of the Illinois Medical Practice Act created a cascade of problems that not only weakened NEMA, but reform medicine major rift in general. During this time eclectic medicine was comprised the leadership of two disparate groups -- “eclectics and independent Thomsonians.” The eclectic physicians were comprised of graduates the National Eclectic Medical Association over the issue of both eclectic and allopathic medical schoolslicensing. Like regular While many Eclectic physicianswere concerned with licensing in other states, these educated physicians wanted in Illinois the Eclectics worked with Regulars to organized themselves into local, state create the Illinois Board of Health and national organizations. On establish medical licensing in the other hand, the Thomsonians were often neither medical school graduates or well-educated. It would have been exceeding hard to organize themstate. Additionally, Haller has argued that Eclectics also served on the reform joint mixed State of medicine or eclecticism was undermined by both the Civil War and, ironically, the success Board of medical eclectics in eliminating legislation limiting their practice rightsHealth.
By 1870, attempts Dr. Anson Clark was not only the Eclectic representative on the Illinois Board of Health but the editor of a leading Chicago Eclectic journal and a future president of NEMA. The willingness of Illinois’ Eclectics such as Clark to align themselves with the state’s Regular physicians rankled the older members of NEMA. These older members were much less willing to revive cooperate with Regulars on either regulation or public health than younger physicians such as Clark. Clark’s actions angered many of the older members because he openly advocated for a unified medical regulation board instead of establishing separate boards for each of the sects. NEMA had begun focused on combating the new wave of licensing that began in earnestthe 1860s. Throughout that decade, unsuccessful licensing bills popped up all over the country. During the winter session of the 1866-67 of the Ohio legislaturelegislative session, for example, a bill was introduced that required would require physicians to be examined by the Ohio State Medical Society and be graduates of a medical school. While Ohio was the heart of Eclectic medicine, and this and other bills proposed around the country in the 1860s were ultimately defeatedbill represented a serious challenge to Eclecticism.<ref><i>Transactions of NEMA 1869-70</i> (1872): 13, it http://books.google.com/ebooks </ref> It became increasingly clear to organized Eclectics that eclectics they would have to combat potentially hostile legislation in numerous state legislaturesacross the country. During the 1870s, The wave of medical licensing laws were passed in several states including Texas, Alabama, Kansas, California and Illinoisthe 1870s demonstrated that their concern was legitimate. But However, it was the passage and implementation of the Illinois Medical Practice Act starting in 1877 that created forced open a split crack in the NEMA’s leadership of NEMA on medical licensing. This crack lead and led to an ongoing debate over licensing within NEMA the group for the next decade. Two NEMA physicians played an outsized role in these debates: Dr. John King (1813-1894) and Dr. Anson L. Clark (1836-1910). King was a pioneer in eclectic medicine and one of its most prominent practitioners. In 1838, King graduated from the Reform Medical School of New York founded by Wooster Beach (1794-1868) in 1827. As a graduate of the Reform Medical School, King ensured that he would be ostracized by the medical establishment as a “charlatan and quack.” Ostracism did not prevent King from becoming a leader in the eclectic movement. After graduation, he traveled extensively and settled in Kentucky where he practiced medicine until 1849. He was integral to organizing the first National Convention of Eclectic Physicians and was named secretary at its first convention. Between 1849 and 1851 he served as the chair of Materia Medica at the Memphis Institute. In 1851, King joined the faculty at the recently founded Eclectic Medical Institute of Cincinnati (EMI) and King taught at EMI for the next four decades. While King was at EMI it became the leading eclectic medical school in the country. While King’s textbook Eclectic Dispensatory was discussed at the 1851 NEMA convention, he published most of his books on eclectic medicine after moving to EMI. Eclectic physicians throughout the nineteenth century extensively used his textbooks. He joined the second NEMA in 1872 two years after it was found and served as its president 1878-1879.
Clark was born in Massachusetts in 1836, but he moved ==How did Eclectic Physicians react to Cook County, the Illinois Medical Practice Act?== The passage of the Illinois law forced NEMA grapple with a wave of new laws modeled after the Illinois when he was five years oldlaw. He graduated from EMI in 1861 Unlike the American Medical Association, NEMA’s response to medical regulation was hampered by its membership’s disagreement about what constituted an Eclectic physician was and probably attended King’s classes as a studentits members’ widely divergent views on medical regulation. During The debate over medical regulation exposed the Civil War, he worked as a surgeon in fissures within the 127th Illinois Volunteer InfantryEclectic community. After The older physicians, who cobbled together the war he moved back Thomsonians, disgruntled Regulars, and medical reformers to give birth to Chicago and Eclectic medicine in 1868 became a member of the faculty 1830s and later as dean at the Bennett College of Eclectic Medicine 1840s, were a discordant group and Surgerypredisposed to oppose any type governmental regulation. In addition These medical reformers had fought hard to working at Bennett he worked as an editor at eliminate medical regulation in the Chicago Medical Times and a member first of half of the Illinois General Assembly in 1871century. Starting in 1877They believed that state regulations discriminated against, marginalized, he served on the Illinois Board of Health (hereinafter Board)and limited their practice rights. During his fourteen years on the Board he served as both its treasurer They viewed Regulars with suspicion and secretarydistrusted their motives in advocating for medical licensing. As member The younger generation of the Board he Eclectic physicians was responsible for regulating not as hostile to medical regulation despite being trained by the practice of medicine under the 1877 Medical Practice Actoriginal Eclectics. AdditionallyUnlike their older colleagues, he served as the President many of NEMA them were Eclectic medical school graduates. They had very little in 1880-1881 and common with the Illinois State Eclectic Medical Society illiterate Thomsonians who aligned themselves with Eclectics in opposition to medical regulation in 1898. These two physicians personified the generation gap within NEMA and first half of the split on medical licensingcentury. At time of NEMA’s creation, American medicine This younger generation was struggling more concerned with two competing ideas: a physician’s duty legitimizing Eclecticism than expanding its definition to protect the public include uneducated and personal libertymarginal medical practitioners. Many The second generation of Eclectic physicians were troubled by the potential expansion of state power over the medical system, but believed that they were equally concerned about the potential danger created by unqualified and had to purge their uneducated physicianscolleagues from their ranks to legitimize Eclecticism. In an Illinois physician best highlighted the dilemma state medical Instead of fighting regulation posed:, they often worked with Regulars to pass nonpartisan legislation.
In our eagerness ==Why did Regular physicians need Eclectic physicians to do all pass medical licensing==Eclectics realized that lies beforeRegulars needed Irregular support to pass licensing laws, and they knew that discriminatory legislation often failed in our keen appreciation of the great desirability of accomplishing certain endsstate legislatures. Between 1870 and 1880, we are in danger of losing sight of the distinction between things proper for State medical authority Eclectics reported to NEMA that state legislatures were unwilling to dodiscriminate against Irregulars. A Nebraska report stated that its legislatures would not pass discriminatory legislation. Massachusetts, Ohio, and things which are desirable in themselves but belong in Wisconsin successfully defeated bills proposed by the American Social Science Association designed to consolidate control under the domain of their properold-school medical societies. Even with these hopeful signs, medical licensing made Eclectics anxious.
==The divide over licensing among Eclectic Physicians==The debate over licensing within the NEMA sparked an outright war between two of its most prominent members: Dr. John King and Dr. Anson Clark. While both physicians sought to downplay the severity of the clash, it is clear from their rhetoric that their battle represented a serious dilemma for NEMA. The tenor of the debate suggested that both physicians believed they were fighting for the soul of the Eclectic movement. King and Clark attacked each other mercilessly to shape its policy. King opposed any type of medical regulation, while Clark worked on the Illinois Board of Health with Regular physicians to regulate the practice of medicine in the state. This heated debate created confusion with NEMA and spawned an awkward and ambiguous policy towards medical regulation. Instead of presenting a united front and crafting a coherent policy, NEMA muddled its stance on medical licensing. NEMA sent mixed messages and left local and state societies to develop their own policies on licensing. Whether NEMA could influence or shape the direction of medical legislation is unclear, but because of its befuddled position, it abdicated any leadership position it might have played in this nationwide medical debate when these laws were first being pushed through state legislatures. John King was a pioneer in Eclectic medicine and one of its most ardent devotees. In 1838, he graduated from the Reform Medical School of New York founded by Wooster Beach (1794-1868) in 1827. As a graduate of the Reform Medical School, King ensured that he would be ostracized by the medical establishment as a “charlatan and quack.”<ref> <i>Eclectic Medical Journal, 1894,</i> Vol. LIV, No. 2: 57-8, http://books.google.com/ebooks. </ref> After graduation, he traveled extensively and settled in Kentucky where he practiced medicine until 1849. He helped organize the first National Convention of Eclectic Physicians, and the attendees elected him secretary at the convention. Between 1870 1849 and 1851 he served as the chairman of Materia Medica at the Memphis Institute. In 1851, King joined the faculty at the recently founded Eclectic Medical Institute of Cincinnati (EMI) and 1900taught there for the next four decades. During his tenure, EMI became the leading Eclectic medical school in the country. King established himself as one of the leading writers of Eclectic textbooks, such as the Eclectic Dispensatory, and published most of his books on Eclectic medicine while at EMI. Eclectic physicians throughout the nineteenth century extensively used King’s textbooks in their medical profession schools. He joined the second iteration of NEMA in 1872 and served as its president from 1878-1879. Anson Clark was forced born in Massachusetts in 1836, but he moved to consider abandoning Cook County, Illinois, when he was five years old. He graduated from EMI in 1861 and likely attended King’s classes as a student. During the Civil War, he worked as a surgeon in the 127th Illinois Volunteer Infantry. After the war, Clark moved back to Chicago and in 1868, became a member of the faculty and later its dean at the Bennett College of Eclectic Medicine and Surgery. In addition to working at Bennett, he served as an expansive notion editor at the Chicago Medical Times and a member of liberty the Illinois General Assembly in 1871. Starting in 1877, Clark served on the Illinois Board of Health. During his fourteen years on the board, he served as both its treasurer and freedom secretary. As a member of the Illinois board, he was responsible for regulating the practice of medicine under the 1877 and 1887 Medical Practice Acts. Additionally, Clark served as the president of NEMA in 1880-1881 and the Illinois State Eclectic Medical Society in order to protect Americans 1898.<ref> “The Eclectic News,” The Eclectic Medical Journal 1898 (July, 1898): 449, http://books.google.com/ebooks; Harvey Wickes Felter, <i>History of the Eclectic Medical Institute Cincinnati, Ohio: 1845-1902</i>, (Alumnal Association of the Eclectic Medical Institute, Cincinnati, 1902), 177, http://books.google.com/ebooks; H. G. Cutler, ed., <i>Physicians and Surgeons of the West, Illinois Edition,</i> (American Biographical Publishing Company, 1900), 238-240, http://books.google.com/ebooks. </ref> These two physicians were from unorganized different generations of Eclectics and incompetent they represented NEMA’s split on medical practitionerslicensing. In 1873, NEMA began discussing the growing push for medical licensing in the United Statesplaces such as Texas. The organization passed a resolution in favor of for requiring “every person” hoping to practice “medicine, surgery or obstetrics” to pass a comprehensive examination covering “the fundamental sciences, comprehending a course of study necessary for the acquirement of a full knowledge of the science of medicine in all its branches.” NEMA believed that an examination was necessary because the general public could not determine “the scientific attainments of medical practitioners” and as medical diplomas were so “freely granted” that they had ceased to be “evidence of the scientific attainments” of their holders. <ref> Transactions of the National Eclectic Medical Association for the years 1879-1880 (1880): 14-15, http://books.google.com/ebooks.</ref> Additionally, eclectics Eclectics could pass this exam as easily as regulars Regulars and homeopathsHomeopaths. This resolution went far beyond the goals of the Illinois Medical Practice Act. It required an examination of non-graduates and graduates of medical schools which that were not in good standing with the Boardboard. The NEMA resolution would have required all physicians to take the medical examination. This resolution is surprising because so many eclectics Eclectics were skeptical of medical licensing.
One of the most unconvinced eclectics King, however, was not just skeptical about medical licensing; he was John Kingadamantly opposed to any medical licensing regulations. In his presidential address in1879 of 1879 at the NEMA conference in Cleveland, he attacked medical regulation generally. King argued that like religion, medicine did not require county, state , or federal regulation. Instead of outsourcing medical licensing to the state, each school of medicine should be responsible for regulating themselves. King believed that these laws did not protect the public and that they were an insult to the intelligence of the American people. King stated that the proposed regulatory schemes would not advance medicine or science; instead , they were simply the work of “bigoted scheming minds” which that sought to elevate their own medical sect. King was most concerned with the efforts of regular Regular physicians to regulate medicine because he believed considered their primary goal was to marginalize eclectic Eclectic medicine. Instead of the elevating the medical profession, he believed that when the state legislatures when they passed medical licensing and registration acts had they violated the “spirit of justice” contained in the United States Constitution.<ref><i>Transactions of NEMA 1879-1880</i>: 14-15.</ref>
Not only did medical regulation undermine eclectic Eclectic medicine, King felt that regulars Regulars would continue to discriminate and torment irregular Irregular practitioners. Even after eclectic Eclectic physicians had complied with the regulars’ Regulars’ “legal enactments,” regulars Regulars still would still refuse to consult with irregulars Irregulars and refer to eclectics Eclectics as “ignorant conceited quack[s].” King did He could not believe imagine that regulars Regulars would ever stop maligning and persecuting eclectics simply Eclectics, even if eclectic Eclectic physicians demonstrated that they were qualified for medical licenses. King held that the regulars Regulars did not seek to protect humanity from charlatanism, but instead sought to legislate the irregulars Eclectics out of existence. King’s views were supported by the thirty Thirty years of discrimination he had suffered had the hands of Old School who had maintained their rigid Code of Ethicsby Regulars convinced King that Regulars could not be trusted to treat Eclectics fairly. This Code barred regular physicians from consulting with irregular physicians or their patients. A state report issued by the New York delegation at the 1879 convention also emphasized supported King’s claims by emphasizing the historical efforts made by regulars Regulars to degrade medical reformers. The report emphasized remarked that regular Regular physicians in the first half of the century had secured medical regulations that criminalized medical practice for irregular Irregular physicians. Additionally, regulars Regulars were accused of actively seeking to drive irregulars Irregulars from the medical practice by encouraging former irregular Irregular patients to sue their physicians. <ref><i>Transactions of NEMA 1879-80</i>: 91-92.</ref>
King’s conviction that medical regulation was simply a Trojan horse was probably reinforced by the The actions of the Illinois State Board of Health in 1879 against his King’s own medical college, Eclectic Medical Institute (EMI), fifteen reinforced his belief that medical regulation was simply a Trojan horse to help Regulars destroy Eclecticism. Fifteen days before the 1879 NEMA conference. On June 3, 1879 the Illinois State Board of Health determined that EMI was not a medical school in “good standing.” Under the 1877 The Illinois Medical Practice Act, the Board asserted it of Health had the power to determine whether a medical school was in “good standing.” Graduates of medical schools in good standing did not have to take a medical examination to practice medicine in Illinois. According to the Board, EMI, the most prominent eclectic medical schools, was unacceptable because it insisted on “giving two full courses of lectures in one year” which would permit students to graduate in one year. At the beginning of the Board’s existence, instead of evaluating each school individual it sought to apply rather mechanistic standards to evaluate medical schools. In 1878, the Board determined that any medical schools which held “two graduating courses in one year” could not be found to be in good standing. While the Board’s criterion was not particularly sophisticated, it was straightforward. The Board could use the medical schools’ own literature to determine whether or not it satisfied their requirements. This criterion made it possible to cheaply evaluate hundreds of medical schools in the North America and Europe.
Clark not only served as a member of According to the Board that decertified board, EMI, but he explicitly approved of the Board’s action. A Chicago Medical Times editorial most prominent Eclectic medical school in July 1879 stated the Board Illinois, was simply “striving to make medical education more thorough, more comprehensive and more fully unacceptable because it insisted on only “giving two full courses of lectures in accord with the progressive spirit of the timesone year.” The editorial chastised At the “belligerence” beginning of the EMI and asked the board’s existence, instead of evaluating each school individually, it sought to “gracefully yield” apply rather mechanistic standards to Boards demandsevaluate medical schools. The editorial went as far as to suggest In 1878, the board determined that any medical school that “students and preceptors to take note of the existing states of affairshad “two graduating courses in one year” was not in good standing. At this time, Clark While the board’s criterion was one of only two editors listed on the Chicago Medical Times byline. Thereforenot particularly sophisticated, he it was undoubtedly aware and in agreement with this editorialclear-cut. Whether or not The board could use the Board’s actions against EMI were motivated by animus towards eclecticism is very difficult medical schools’ own literature to determinewhether it satisfied their requirements. The mechanistic nature of the Board’s This criterion would have complicated any attempts made it possible to punish just eclectic schools. Numerous allopathic cheaply evaluate hundreds of medical schools were also asked to comply with the Board’s criterion. Still, the editorial’s suggestion that “students in North America and preceptors” should take note of the current situation does imply another reason for the Clark’s strong support of the action against EMIEurope. While Clark may have simply agreed with the Board’s position as an attempt to elevate medical education, it could be cynically noted that he potentially had a financial stake in the decertification of EMI. As a faculty member Chicago’s Bennett Medical College he might have benefited personally by steering students away from EMI or undermining its reputation.
Clark not only served as a member of the board that decertified EMI, but he explicitly approved of the board’s action. A Chicago Medical Times editorial by Clark in July 1879 stated that the board was simply “striving to make medical education more thorough, more comprehensive and more fully in accord with the progressive spirit of the times.”<ref><i>The Chicago Medical Times, 1879</i>, Vol. XI, No. 4: 181-182, http://books.google.com/ebooks.</ref> The editorial chastised the “belligerence” of EMI and asked for the school to “gracefully yield” to the board’s demands. The editorial went as far as to suggest that “students and preceptors to take note of the existing states of affairs.”<ref> The Chicago Medical Times, 1879, Vol. XI, No. 4: 181-182, http://books.google.com/ebooks. </ref> Yet, Clark was one of only two editors listed on the Chicago Medical Times byline. Therefore, he probably wrote the editorial and even if he did not, he agreed with this editorial. Illinois board’s action against EMI most likely was not motivated by animus to Eclecticism, and Clark’s support for the board undermined King’s claim. Also, the mechanistic nature of the board’s criteria would have complicated any attempts to punish only Eclectic schools. The board also asked numerous Allopathic medical schools to comply with the board’s criteria. Still, the editorial’s suggestion that “students and preceptors” should take note of the current situation did imply another reason for Clark’s strong support of the action against EMI. While Clark simply may have agreed with the board’s position as an attempt to elevate medical education, he also may have had a financial stake in decertifying EMI. As a faculty member of the competing Bennett Medical College in Chicago, he might have benefited by steering students to Bennett. Despite King’s jeremiad attack against medical licensing, various state eclectic Eclectic medical organizations advocated on behalf of regulation in their legislatures. The Nebraska delegation even stated that they were it was concerned that the state could might pass medical regulations that were “too liberal.” They It sought licensing to license that not only protected the public from harm, but advanced the reputation of eclectic Eclectic medicine. The imposters who endangered the public Nebraska delegation also was concerned that charlatans often “assume[d] the name Eclectic” when they practiced medicine. <ref>Transactions NEMA 1879-80 (1880): 86. </ref> The Kansas delegation believed conjectured that the passage of its state law had enhanced the reputation of eclectic Eclectic physicians and “confidently believed” that it would spur growth in the state organization. Instead of aiding the regular Regular school, the Kansas report indicated that medical regulation was “a great discomfiture” to them. <ref> Transactions of NEMA 1879-80 (1880): 77-78.</ref> Other eclectics Eclectics clearly were clearly willing to forget past actions by regulars Regulars and compromise with them if they could secure non-discriminatory legislation.
==John Buchanan's medical diploma mill encouraged Eclectic Physicians to support licensing==During the next convention in Chicago in 1880, several members raised legitimate concerns about the reputation of eclectic Eclectic medical education. In 1880, NEMA became aware that John Buchanan, one of the ringleaders of a “John Buchanan” large and notorious diploma mill in Philadelphia had not only claimed to be , listed serving as the President president of NEMA, but was selling eclectic medical degreesas one of his chief credentials. Even though his statements and actions were fraudulent, NEMA justifiably was concerned about the potential consequences of that Buchanan’s actions for claims could undermine faith in NEMA. As a direct consequence of Buchanan and other Philadelphia entrepreneurs’ traffic trafficking in medical degrees, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a medical registration act two years later designed to end this unsavory practice. Benjamin Lee, a prominent regular Regular physician from Philadelphia, believed argued that act had at least “temporarily” closed the most egregious diploma mills. <ref><i>Transactions of the American Medical Association 1882</i> (1882): 385, http://books.google.com/ebooks.</ref> Unsurprisingly, the allegations of Buchanan’s fraud encouraged members to discuss how diploma sales could be halted. At Members proposed a resolution at the same convention, a resolution was proposed to support the creation of State Boards state medical boards that would end the traffic of fake diplomas and medicines, but only if they were ruled . The proposal dictated that their support was contingent on the boards’ beginning to be governed by all of the schools of medicinemajor medical sects. During Dr. Milbrey Green’s address to the convention in 1880, he emphasized that NEMA, since 1873, had NEMA supported regulations designed to prevent “incompetent men” from receiving diplomas. Green acknowledged that the country had been flooded with fraudulent diplomas for allopathicfrom Allopathic, Homeopathic, homeopathic and eclectic Eclectic schools of medicine. He believed stated that it was critical for all physicians to unite against these practices because NEMA and other state medical societies could not eliminate these problems on their own. Green’s statement was fairly clear, <ref><i>Transactions of NEMA needed to support state legislation to eliminate diploma mills and the threat they represented to eclectic medicine. In Wisconsin, the state eclectic society agreed with Green and helped pass a medical licensing act that required physicians to possess a medical school diploma1879-80</i> (1880): 2-63. </ref> The Wisconsin report stated that the eclectics did not want any “half-breed Eclectics here and shall be glad to slough them off.”
Green’s statement made it clear that NEMA needed to support some type of state legislation to eliminate diploma mills. He also underlined the threat they posed to Eclectic medicine. In Wisconsin, the state Eclectic society agreed with Green and helped pass a medical licensing act that required physicians to possess a medical school diploma. The Wisconsin report stated that Eclectics did not want any “half-breed Eclectics here and shall be glad to slough them off.”<ref> <i>Transactions of NEMA 1881-82</i> (1882): 82-83.</ref> Other eclectic Eclectic physicians argued that medical regulation could not only might eliminate fraudulent practitioners, but improve, despite King’s assertions to the contrary, relations between various medical sects. The report from the Anson’s Illinois delegation on the status of eclectic medicine at the 1880 convention stated that medical regulation had actually improved in the state thawed relations between among the “Eclectic, Old-School or Homeopathic” schools of practicephysicians. Instead of discrimination, the report alleged stated that eclectics Eclectics no longer reported “unpleasant encounters” with other competing Regular physicians.<ref><i>Transactions of NEMA 1880-81</i> (1881): 8.</ref> When Regulars served side by side with Eclectics and Homeopaths, it made it more difficult for Regulars to demonize them. This The Illinois report suggested a brighter future for eclectics Eclectics if they were willing to compromise their views on medical regulation.
Eclectics in a number of states were equally heartened by the fact that discriminatory legislation often failed in state legislaturesWhether licensing immediately ameliorated relations between Regulars and Irregulars is debatable, but mixed licensing boards gave these physicians an opportunity to meet each other as colleagues and equals. The year before, the Nebraska report Clark stated that the legislatures would he did not pass discriminatory legislation. In 1880, the New Jersey report stated that it, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin had successfully defeated a bills proposed feel threatened by the American Social Science Association designed to consolidate control under Regular physicians he worked with on the Old-School medical societiesboard. An 1873 constitutional amendment in Texas barred any legislation which discriminated against any sects of medicineWhere King saw enemies, Clark recognized physicians who were quite similar to himself. In KansasThey were medical school graduates, the recently approved who were deeply involved with medical practice act accidentally prevented the licensing of regular physicians. Under the statuteeducation, Kansas outsourced control of the medicine to the regularactive in their medical societies, eclectic and homeopathic published in medical societiesjournals. Unfortunately for the regular physiciansThese values and goals were shared also by organized, the state determined that their educated Eclectics and Homeopaths. While medical society did licensing was not have necessarily a legal charter and fait accompli in 1880, it was barred from licensing physiciansbecoming clear that state legislatures were becoming more inclined to pass these regulations especially if they were tied to sanitation reform. The As Eclectics continued to debate in favor the merits of passing nonpartisan legislation licensing, the crawl toward nationwide licensing continued at in the 1883 annual convention in Topeka, Kansas1880s. The president While the 1870s was defined by these early efforts to pass any type of NEMAmedical practice acts, in the 1880s, physicians, Andrew Jackson Howemedical societies, openly advocated and the creation of “organized newly created medical licensing boards often sought both to implement these laws and efficient Boards of Health” as long as the “rules adopted” were equitable. Howe cited the creation of strengthen the Missouri Board of Health as an example of acceptable nonpartisan newly created medical regulation. He even believed that this type of legislation would eliminate eventually AMA ethics rules that barred regulars from consulting with irregulars. Clark would have certainly agreed with Howe’s assessment because had Missouri adopted legislation similar to that in Illinoisregulations. In 1884states where legislatures passed registration laws, the Illinois Board even helped Missouri organize its own medical boardsocieties immediately attacked these regulations as ineffective and useless. Members Additionally, after tying together boards of the two boards often attended each other’s meetingshealth and medical licensing, Regulars created a strong argument in favor of licensing and expanding their power. The similarities between the two states’ laws allowed Missouri members Doctors effectively had turned medical licensing from an economic to model the principles Illinois used to “establish precedents and formulat[e] principles upon which to base decisions in the many difficult and delicate questions which continually present themselvesa public health issue.
In 1884==State Supreme Courts approved of state licensing laws around the United States==As state supreme courts around the country began to rule in favor of licensing laws, opponents were forced to double down against their passage. If state courts refused to invalidate licensing, despite then the continued advocacy only way to stop licensing laws was to prevent their progress in state legislatures. These early court decisions placed additional pressure on behalf opponents of nonpartisan medical regulation, licensing within the National Eclectic Medical Association (NEMA altered its position on medical regulation after a spirited ). The debate between King and Clark in favor of passing nonpartisan licensing legislation continued at the 1883 NEMA annual convention at the birthplace of eclectic medicinein Topeka, CincinnatiKansas. King’s and Clark’s previous statements to convention had already demonstrated that they fundamentally disagreed on The president of NEMA, Andrew Jackson Howe, openly advocated the necessity creation of “organized and legality efficient Boards of medical regulationHealth” as long as the “rules adopted” were equitable. These positions were a result Howe cited the creation of the Missouri Board of Health as an example of their very different experiences with acceptable nonpartisan medical regulation. King had witnessed eclectic physicians He even believed that this type of legislation eventually would eliminate the dismantling American Medical Association ethics rules that barred Regulars from consulting with Irregulars.<ref><i>Transactions of discriminatory state medical regulations NEMA 1883-- laws that intentionally marginalized irregular physicians by creating a class system for physicians84</i> (1884): 50. While regular physicians generally received government recognition </ref> Eclectic opponents of medical licensing became more vocal and were permitted to collect boisterous in their fees, irregulars were excluded from these regulationsopposition. Clark was twenty years younger than King. Clark may have been against discriminated by regulars during his careerOrganized Regulars already had demonstrated that they needed Irregular support in most states to pass licensing, but he still believed that he could successfully and the opponents of these laws in NEMA continued the attack to convince NEMA’s membership to oppose these laws and not compromise with them and elevate the medical professionRegulars.
==The 1884 debate between John and Anson Clark at the Eclectic medical conference== In 1884, despite the continued advocacy by leadership on behalf of nonpartisan medical regulation, NEMA’s position on medical licensing was in flux as John King and Anson Clark debated the topic at the annual convention in Cincinnati, the birthplace of Eclectic medicine. King’s and Clark’s speeches at the convention demonstrated that they not only disagreed fundamentally on the necessity and legality of medical regulation but represented the fundamental split within NEMA. They had very different experiences with medical regulation up to this point in their careers. King had taken part, along with his older Eclectic colleagues, in the dismantling of discriminatory state medical regulations in the 1840s and 1850s. These earlier laws were passed by Regulars, and they were intentionally meant to marginalize Irregular physicians. King was sickened by the fact that Eclectics were now working with Regulars, who he believed still wanted to eliminate Eclectics and Homeopaths. On the other hand, Clark was twenty years younger than King and was not involved in this struggle. Clark may have been against discriminated by Regulars during his career, but he still believed that he could successfully compromise with them and elevate the medical profession. At the 1884 convention, both King and Clark were invited to present their different positions views on licensing to the membership. Their disagreement was not limited to medical legislation; in fact, the heart of their disagreement centers centered on the definition of eclectic Eclectic medicine. While King maintained an expansive definition and deemed numerous uneducated and marginal practitioners as medical eclecticsEclectics, Clark’s definition limited eclecticism Eclecticism to his organized and educated colleagues. Medical Numerous Eclectic medical practitioners that King were , viewed by him King as his brothers -in -arms , were seen by Clark as frauds and charlatans. They were arguing not only arguing about medical legislation but about who comprised the legitimate heart and soul of eclecticismEclecticism.
In many ways, this definitional debate was limited to the Eclectics. While Homeopaths were threatened by licensing, they did not have the same problems defining Homeopathy. Unlike Eclecticism, Homeopathy was the product of a single physician. As long as Homeopaths agreed to follow Samuel Hahnemann's medical system, they automatically knew who was a Homeopath and who was not. On the hand, Eclectics were defined by their diversity. Medical licensing threatened this diversity because licensing was designed to eliminate medical practitioners who did not fit a certain mode. Medical licensing was beginning to coalesce around the notion that doctors needed to have a medical degree from a certain type of institution. Any physician who failed to attend the right type of institution risked being marginalized or eliminated. King had consistently opposed medical legislation in any form throughout his career and his position never changed. King believed was convinced that eclectics any Eclectics who were even just lukewarm to licensing were essentially “traitors” because they have forgotten the sacrifice made by early eclectics Eclectics to overturn the medical legislation propounded in the first half of the century. <ref> <i>Transactions of NEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 181.</ref> He felt Eclectics had an obligation to oppose medical regulation in any and all of its forms. In King’s his address he , King made several provocative arguments in opposition to licensing; -- arguments that were focused on undermining the growing support for medical licensing in NEMA. He attacked medical regulations and claimed that they were “despotic” enactments that violated the United States Constitution , which guaranteed rights “equally.” Not only did licensing violate the Constitutionconstitution, but it was also ultimately a “system or spying, of oppression and of usurpation, fully equal to the Machavelian Machiavellian absolutism of certain European nations.” He <ref> Transactions of NEMA 1884-85 (1885): 178-79, 187.</ref> King declared that American civil rights grew “out of the Constitution” and that any effort to eliminate these rights would establish a precedent for future deprivations. Even medical registration (the least onerous type of licensing) was described by him as “disgraceful, detestable, antirepublicananti-republican, and in opposition to that Amendment of the Federal Constitution intended to prevent caste monopoly.” He simply could not understand why physicians who had practiced “20, 30 or 40 years” should be compelled to register with the state. <ref><i>Transactions of NEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 178-79, 186-87.</ref>
John King’s opposition to medical regulation did not stop there. He also asserted that medical eclecticism Eclecticism itself was an expression of American freedom and that any type of regulation would undermine the concept and practice of eclecticismEclecticism. In King’s mind, eclecticism Eclecticism represented not just freedom from the dogmatic views of the Old School, but mental freedom that could only be preserved if “destructive legislation” was defeated. He thought that medical regulation could weaken the strength of reformed medicine by limiting the freedom of its practitioners. Not only were individual physicians’ rights curtailed by medical legislation, but licensing laws would prevent the general public from seeking treatment from whomever they desired. The public wanted the same freedom in selecting their physician as they did in picking “their religion” or “their tailor.” <ref><i> Transactions of NEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 15-16.</ref> King objected to the notion that only the state could adequately evaluate physicians adequately and protect the public from fraudulent practitioners. Instead of relying on the Statestate, the public should be permitted to evaluate physicians on their own. King assumed that malpractice law could more than adequately protect the public from incompetent or unqualified physicians. The ability of citizens to sue their physicians, King argued, gave them sufficient enforcement power to ensure public health. <ref><i>Transaction of NEMA 1884-83</i>: 178-181.</ref>
King fervently believed that Old School physicians could not be trusted to pass fair and equitable licensing acts. Regulars had used medical legislation in the first half of the century to marginalize and attack irregulars Irregulars, and King believed that the current push for licensing was no different. He stated that only regulars Regulars and their proxies were openly in favor of favored medical regulation. While the regulars Regulars argued that they sought licensing to license “to protect the people,” King did not believe that the people shared their concern. The demand for medical legislation did not come from common citizens, but from the regulars Regulars and their proxies. The regulars Regulars were not trying to protect the public’s health and welfare; they simply sought to create a medical monopoly. The public according to King was in a much better position to protect its health and welfare than the state legislatures.
The public, according to King, was in a much better position to protect its health and welfare than state legislatures.Additionally, the regulars Regulars were not interested in saving, but preserving their “vacillating, uncertain system” of medicine. According to King , Old School medicine was on the ropes and the regulars Regulars were advocating only advocating for medical licensing because while they still possessed some credibility. While regulars Regulars may have sneered and jeered at irregulars Irregulars from a distance, King argued that they had adopted irregular Irregular medicine over the past forty years. Previous theories and hypotheses considered essential parts of the Old School , especially heroic medicine have , had recently been recently questioned or even rejected. Over time a regular physician’s , Regular physicians’ understanding of disease had endured underwent dramatic changes. King attempted to chart the changes in Old School medicine. First, he stated that disease was believed to be caused by “certain conditions of the fluids of the system.” Later regulars alterd Regulars altered this dogma and became convinced that disease was caused by “conditions of both the fluids and solids.” King declared that their understanding of disease was again being replaced by the “names of bacteria, bacilli, micrococci, microbes, or minute vegetable formulation in the fluids, in the solids, or in both.” The existence of competing sects of medicine was , in King’s mind , “prima facia evidence of the fallibility of regular practice” and a demonstration of the regulars’ Regulars’ questionable reputation. King believed that only medical regulation could preserve their the Regulars’ waning strength. <ref> Transactions of NEMA 1884-85 (1885): 180, 182-83.</ref>
Instead of protecting American lives, King also argued that medical legislation , instead of protecting American lives, ultimately would ultimately imperil public health because it would prevent talented individuals from entering the practice of medicine. King stated that many successful physicians had practiced without diplomas and that it was unnecessary to have one in order to treat patients effectively. Medical legislation would not only would prohibit numerous people from practicing medicine, but if a “farmer, grocer or other non-professional person” people” discovered “a cure for cancer” cancer,” licensing would bar them from sharing their cures. While King did not disparage medical graduates, he stated that “too much legal importance has been given to it” because a medical degree cannot ensure that an individual was a “safe and successful medical practitioner.” Medical students were not exposed to any educational material that could not be learned from a textbook. King did not believe that a broad education in math, science, anatomy, chemistry, “microscopic germs,” and dead languages would benefit physicians. It was not uncommon for “illiterate men” to have a rare gift for treating the sick, but licensing laws would prevent them sharing their gifts with humanity. <ref><i>Transactions of NEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 177, 180, 183-85.</ref>
The biggest tragedy in King’s mind was that honest , hardworking physicians and their families families’ very survival was threatened by the specter of medical regulations. People, King stated, who had faithfully executed their jobs as healers , would be classified as criminals for the same work that previously had been previously lauded. The medical regulations in Illinois had deprived many physicians of their rights and driven drove them from their homes. King cited the fact that almost two thousand “irregular” “Irregular” physicians had been forced out of Illinois by medical licensing as evidence that licensing was targeting their kind. Instead of praising the efforts of the Illinois Board board to eliminate the least educated and the most unorganized physicians, he castigated them for destroying the lives of thousands of able physicians. King even went out of his way to defend even the most reviled medical practitioners: nostrum peddlers. nostrum Nostrum peddlerssold medicines and potions that not only possessed little medicinal value but could be dangerous. He pointed out the irony that regular Regular physicians often promoted nostrums while condemning their sellers as quacks. If anything , the hypocritical position was taken by numerous Old School physicians simply underscored the collapse of their allegedly superior therapeutic system.<ref><i>Transactions of NEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 183, 190-91.</ref>
Finally, King claimed that ultimately “[r]estrictive laws are enacted” to generate revenue for the government. When the government grants special privileges or licenses to some, but not others , it is a form of “indirect taxation.” As an indirect tax , it was antithetical to both the Constitution and American principles of freedom because it was essentially feudal in nature. These taxes are were premised on the idea that citizens were incapable of taking care of themselves and they needed a “master or law to take care of him.” King then extended the same objection to Boards boards of Healthhealth. He stated that the nation had successfully existed for over more than one hundred years without these government Boardsboards. All of the functions granted to Boards boards of Health health had been handled successfully handled by local medical societies and local government authorities. Americans were more than capable of taking care of themselves without these indirect taxes or unnecessary boards. <ref><i>Transactions of NEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 190-191.</ref>
Unlike King, Clark’s statement on medical legislation was brief and tightly focused. Clark believed that if eclectics Eclectics failed to embrace medical regulations, eclecticism’s Eclecticism’s very existence would be endangered. While he focused directed his attention on the impact of the Illinois Medical Practice Act over its first five years, he Clark also briefly attacked several of the key arguments advanced by King in his address. His Clark’s primary goal was to assuage his fellow physicians’ fears and demonstrate that the success of the Illinois law had benefited eclecticism Eclecticism in Illinoisthe state. Clark first noted that State the state had an a legitimate interest in protecting the health and lives of its citizens. Therefore, he argued that protecting the lives of its citizens was as part of its “police powers” and that the state had an absolute right to regulate these matters. King’s expectation that physicians should be exempted exempt from government regulations was untenable , especially if their actions were found to “be detrimental to the welfare of the people composing the commonwealth.” Clark essentially acknowledged that the state had broad powers to regulate medicine. <ref> <i>Transactions of NEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 174-75.</ref>
Next, Clark stated that the “venomous” eclectic Eclectic objections were ultimately counterproductive and “shortsighted.” While King claimed that allopathy Allopathy was collapsing , Clark acknowledged a readily apparent reality; eclectics : Eclectics were vastly outnumbered by regularsRegulars. In most states eclectics , Eclectics comprised only one-sixth to one-twelfth of the total number of physicians in each the state. Eclectics were a fairly small minority , and they needed protection from the State state to elevate their standing and protect their sect. In lieu of fighting each and every law regulating medicine, Clark believed that eclectics Eclectics needed to organize and secure the rights that the regular Regular physicians were willing to grant them.<ref> <i>Transactions of NEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 174-75.</ref>
Clark did not have a the same benevolent view of the irregular Irregular rabble that King lionized. Clark thought that the illiterate medical savants described by King were frauds, incompetents , and “medical mountebanks.” King believed that these uneducated medical men were eclecticsEclectics, while Clark maintained a much more exclusive definition. Clark would not have seen an uneducated Thomosonian Thomsonian practitioner as a qualified physician, but even though King saw them him or her as colleagues a colleague and equalsequal. Clark believed that eclectic Eclectic medicine’s principled stand for freedom had “allowed frauds to fill our nest with more dirt and rubbish than all the decent ones could clear out.” The uneducated physicians were not allies in a war against the regularsRegulars, but threats to the reputation of organized and educated eclectic Eclectic physicians. Unless the eclectics Eclectics purged their ranks of this “rubbish” “rubbish,” they could not be “respected.”Clark was thrilled that the Illinois Medical Practice Act chased 1500 people out of their medical practices. Instead of weeping for the displaced families, Clark was comforted that these individuals were forced to either abandon medicine or go to medical school. He maintained eclectics were not harmed by the Board’s crackdown on itinerant physicians who lied about their skills in dishonest advertisements. Clark did not believe that any <ref> <i>Transactions of these individuals could be classified as eclectics. Clark argued that eclectics had to try and secure their rights as qualified medical practitioners. If they simply opposed all medical legislation, then eclectics faced a precarious future. If they cooperated with other organized and educated physicians they could ensure their survival. Clark believed that Illinois and Missouri were outstanding models for eclectics because qualified practitioners, whether allopath, homeopath, eclectic, had benefited from just, nonpartisan medical regulationNEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 175-76.</ref>
King’s and Clark’s position on Clark was thrilled that the Illinois Medical Practice Act chased one-thousand-five-hundred people from their medical regulation demonstrated a fundamental rift in eclectic medicinepractices. King believed that medical regulation was a continuation Instead of weeping for the ongoing war between regular and irregular displaced families, Clark was comforted that these individuals were forced to either abandon medicineor go to medical school. What he saw as a last desperate attempt He maintained Eclectics were not harmed by the enfeebled regulars to preserve board’s crackdown on itinerant physicians who lied about their status and legitimacy, skills in dishonest advertisements.<ref><i> Transactions of NEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 175-76.</ref> Clark viewed did not believe that any of these individuals could be classified as an opportunity Eclectics. Clark argued that Eclectics actively had to unite organized, educated secure their rights as qualified medical practitioners and elevate medical eclecticism. King was unwilling to compromise on If they simply opposed all medical legislation, but Clark believed it was the best hope for helping the qualified eclectic physiciansthen Eclectics faced a precarious future. King was heavily vested in the success of eclecticism. He was recognized as a pioneer If they cooperated with other organized and leading scholar for the movement. He had educated numerous physicians, including Clark, during his long career and he understood that medical legislation they could potentially unite medicine. Instead of occupying ensure their niche, eclectic physicians might be incorporated into allopathy if licensing succeededsurvival. He was clearly concerned Clark believed that eclecticism would not be able to maintain its separate identity Illinois and disappearMissouri were outstanding models for Eclectics because qualified practitioners, whether Allopath, Homeopath, Eclectic, benefited from just, nonpartisan medical regulation.
Clark is less concerned with preserving eclecticism. He was a full generation younger than King ==The Generation gap in Eclectic Medicine==King’s and he was willing to compromise with allopaths and homeopaths Clark’s positions on licensingmedical regulation demonstrated the fundamental rift in Eclectic medicine. He did not hate the regulars, he simply King believed that they were wrong. His attack on unorganized, uneducated medical regulation was a continuation of the ongoing war between Regular and marginal practitioners confirmed his belief that Irregular medicine could not be effectively practiced by anyone. Education What King saw as a last desperate attempt by the enfeebled Regulars to preserve their status and training were essential for physicians and he simply did not want legitimacy, Clark viewed as an opportunity to be associated with traveling itinerants unite organized, educated medical practitioners and illiterate herbalistselevate medical Eclecticism. Eclecticism had accepted these individuals in the past and he sought King was unwilling to eliminate their presence in eclecticism and medicine. If compromise on medical societies could not purge the ranks of quacks and charlatanslegislation, then he but Clark believed that it was the states had a responsibility to protect their citizensbest hope for helping qualified Eclectic physicians. Clark’s assessment King was vested heavily in the success of these individuals Eclecticism. He was undoubtedly shaped by his own experiences recognized as a practicing physician pioneer and his work on leading scholar for the Illinois Boardmovement. The Illinois Board conducted quasi-judicial hearings to punish He had educated numerous physicians for misconduct , including Clark, during his long career, and ethical violationshe understood that medical legislation could potentially unite medicine. In 1880Instead of occupying its niche, the Illinois Board prosecuted two Eclectic physicians for practicing under aliases who assumed the identity of a prominent professor at Bennett Medical College, Clark’s employermight be incorporated into Allopathy if licensing succeeded. The Bennett faculty asked the Board King clearly was concerned that Eclecticism would not be able to prosecute the physicians maintain its separate identity and ultimately the charlatans’ medical licenses were revoked. Clark had seen that medical licensing could protect prominent eclectic physicians from King’s rabbledisappear.
Interestingly enoughClark was less concerned with preserving Eclecticism. He was a full generation younger than King, this same rift and generational gap he was appearing among the regulars. Local and state regular medical societies were forced willing to work compromise with organized irregular practitioners to secure legislation. These interactions softened their attitudes Allopaths and Homeopaths on irregular practitionerslicensing. The President of He did not hate the Illinois State Medical Society had argued for this approach at the society’s annual meeting shortly before the act Regulars; he simply believed that their medical system was passed in 1877fundamentally unsound. While he demanded passage of a medical licensing law to protect the public from unqualified His attack on unorganized, uneducated, and marginal practitioners, he conceded confirmed his belief that eclectic medicine could not be effectively practiced by everyone. Education and homeopathic practitioners training were, like regular essential for physicians, “devoted and Clark simply did not want to their patients be associated with traveling itinerants and professionilliterate herbalists. He advocated détente between regulars and irregulars Eclecticism accepted these individuals in Illinois and argued that the Medical Society should pass “wise past, and impartial legislation” which recognized only “well-educated men” but debarred incompetents, “whether regular or irregular.” Many regulars recognized that he sought to eliminate their understanding of medicine was changing presence in Eclecticism and some of them were beginning to acknowledge that the Old School profession did not have a monopoly on effective medicine. By 1884If medical societies could not purge the ranks of quacks and charlatans, most regulars had rejected then he thought the heroic therapeutics that states had defined their practice a century earlier. Organized regular and irregular physicians were beginning responsibility to resemble each other more than at any other time in United States historyprotect their citizens. While King still identified with the uneducated rabble, organized and educated regular and irregular physicians began see that they shared common interests.
After King’s presentation, NEMA agreed to publish ten thousand copies Clark’s assessment of King’s address to sell to eclectics around these individuals undoubtedly was shaped by his own experiences as a practicing physician and his work on the countryIllinois board. The Association also unanimously approved a resolution thanking King Illinois board conducted quasi-judicial hearings to punish physicians for “his able misconduct and scholarly addressethical violations. In addition to thanking King for his contributions1880, NEMA changed its official stance on medical legislation. It passed a strong resolution stating “[t]hat while the National Eclectic Medical Association is in favor of elevating Illinois board prosecuted two physicians for practicing under aliases who assumed the standard identity of a prominent professor at Bennett Medical EducationCollege, it is opposed to all medical legislationClark’s employer.” While The Bennett faculty asked the passage of this resolution might have suggested a major shift in NEMA’s official stance on licensing, board to prosecute the resolution was altered physicians and ultimately the next daycharlatans’ medical licenses were revoked. A motion to insert “class” in front <Ref> <i>Annual Report State Board of Health of “medical legislation” was adopted by NEMAIllinois 1880</i> (1881): 5-7. This change rendered the entire resolution meaningless. NEMA may have opposed “class </ref> Clark had seen that medical legislation,” whatever that means, but it failed to state what it did support? Did it support non-class legislation or no regulation at all? NEMA had not changed its position as much as guarantee its ambiguitylicensing could protect prominent Eclectic physicians from King’s rabble.
King failed Interestingly enough, this generational gap also was appearing among the Regulars. Local and state Regular medical societies were forced to attend work with organized Irregular practitioners to secure legislation. These interactions softened their attitudes toward Irregular practitioners. The president of the Illinois State Medical Society argued for this approach at the next national convention because his wife society’s annual meeting shortly before the act was ill, but passed in 1877. While he sent demanded passage of a letter medical licensing law to be read at protect the convention. Againpublic from unqualified practitioners, he emphasized his opposition conceded that Eclectic and Homeopathic practitioners were, like Regular physicians, “devoted to any form their patients and profession.”<ref> <i>Transactions of the Twenty-Sixth Anniversary Meeting of medical regulationthe Illinois State Medical Society, 1876</i> (Chicago, 1876): 196, http://books.google.com/ebooks. </ref> He stated advocated détente between Regulars and Irregulars in Illinois and argued that any eclectics who supported the medical society should pass “wise and impartial legislation had “dough,” which recognized only “well-faces and cowardly heartseducated men” but debarred incompetents, “whether regular or irregular.” They had chosen to “lick <ref><i>Transactions of the hands” Twenty-Sixth Anniversary Meeting of the regulars who sought to “annihilate them.” Instead reforming physiciansIllinois State Medical Society, 1876</i> (Chicago, eclectics needed to focus their energy on educating the public. 1876): If an educated patient foolishly chose to seek treatment from quacks, it was “their American right and privilege196.</ref>
King again addressed NEMA in 1886 about the dangers Many Regulars recognized that their understanding of medical licensing. His arguments had changed little from medicine was changing, and some were beginning to acknowledge that the 1884 debate. He reemphasized that physicians Old School profession did not need have a scientific education and it was inappropriate for medical boards to test them monopoly on this materialeffective medicine. Uneducated physicians By 1884, most Regulars had advanced medicine in all three medical branches and King believed rejected the heroic therapeutics that patients did not care defined their practice a century earlier, even if their doctor was an expert they were still being taught in scienceRegular medical schools. King also proposed forming medical societies composed of irregular Organized Regular and Irregular physicians and anyone else who was opposed medical legislationwere beginning to resemble each other more than at any other time in United States history. He believed that While King still identified with the Knights of Labor could be used as an appropriate model for these new organizationsuneducated rabble, because “medical menorganized and educated Regular, after allEclectic, are but laboring men.” He asked eclectics to “Organise Promptly” and Homeopathic physicians began to fight medical legislation. Not only should eclectics unite with anyone who opposed medical legislation, they should “avoid and banish” dissenters. King argued see that eclecticism faced extinction if they failed to organize themselves and fightshared common interests.
==Eclectics push against licensing==In 1885a democratic vote, NEMA attempted to clarify it position on medical regulation. It passed three separate resolutions addressing licensing. The resolutions claimed that it was still opposed sided with King and agreed to “Partisan Legislation,” but in favor publish ten thousand copies of Board of Health as they were “not empowered King’s address to act prejudicially sell to any class of physiciansEclectics around the country. The final association also unanimously approved a resolution stated that NEMA favored “testing the constitutionality of laws” which discriminated against eclecticsthanking King for “his able and scholarly address. The resolution adopted the previous year which opposed “all class medical legislation” remained the official policy ”<ref> <i>Transactions of NEMA1884-85</i> (1885): 29. While the new resolutions were clearly an effort </ref> In addition to clarify their policyrecognizing King for his contributions, they still did not advocate on behalf of anything. While King and Clark were not able to materially alter NEMA’s NEMA changed its official stance on medical licensing, Clark’s vision for medical licensing ultimately became realitylegislation. By King’s death 1894, it was fairly clear that medical licensing had become It passed a permanent feature of American life. King’s complaints that medical licensing laws violated strong resolution stating “[t]hat while the Constitution were widely rejected. While courts occasionally expressed some skepticism about the merits and necessity National Eclectic Medical Association is in favor of licensing, they universally held that the state had a strong interest in protecting elevating the health and welfare standard of citizens under its police powers. Even in 1884 King would have been aware that these laws had been consistently upheld. Ultimately, he was engaged in wishful thinking when he stated that the laws were unconstitutional. Additionally, while people had a right to choose their own physicianMedical Education, it was becoming increasingly difficult for patients is opposed to determine who was adequately qualified to treat them safelyall medical legislation. King sought to preserve the free market ”<ref> <i>Transactions of medicine just as many other people were becoming weary of it. Through their prosecutions, medical boards throughout the country demonstrated that the United States was plagued with dangerous and unqualified physicians. People were being killed by incompetents and malpractice laws did not protect them from being killed by their physician. King underestimated the threat faced by the general public because he worked so closely with quacks in the pastNEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 31. </ref>
At While the end passage of this resolution might have suggested a major shift in NEMA’s official stance on licensing, the resolution was altered the very next day. Instead of being a meaningful shift of its position, the failure NEMA’s adoption of NEMA outright opposition to clarify its stance on medical regulation may have hindered state licensing looked increasingly like a token of appreciation and local eclectic medical societies combat partisan legislationrespect to King for his contributions to Eclecticism. These societies would have been required A motion to fend for themselvesinsert “class” in front of “medical legislation” was adopted by NEMA. This change rendered the entire resolution meaningless. NEMA’s official policy would NEMA may have encouraged skepticism by eclecticsopposed “class medical legislation,” whatever that meant, but it failed to provide them with any guidancestate what it did support. The local societies would have Did it support non-class legislation or no regulation at all? NEMA had not changed its position as much as guarantee its ambiguity. King failed to attend the next national convention because his wife was ill, but he sent a letter to determine for themselves whether proposed regulations were potentially beneficial or undesirablebe read at the conference. AdditionallyAgain, it would have been much more difficult these societies he emphasized his opposition to effectively lobby the state legislatures without alternative regulatory plansany form of medical regulation. Additionally, if local He stated that any Eclectics who supported medical legislation had “dough-faces and eclectic societies adopted cowardly hearts.” They had chosen to “lick the resolves passed at hands” of the national convention they would have only muddled Regulars who sought to “annihilate them.” Instead of reforming physicians, Eclectics needed to focus their position energy on medical legislation in their discussions with state legislatorseducating the public. If educated patients foolishly chose to seek treatment from quacks, it was “their American right and privilege.” <ref> <i>Transactions of NEMA 1884-85</i> (1885): 22. </ref> Notwithstanding In 1886, King again addressed NEMA about the shrillness dangers of King’s addressmedical licensing. His arguments changed little from the 1884 debate. He reemphasized that physicians did not need a scientific education and that it was inappropriate for medical boards to test them on this material. Uneducated physicians had advanced medicine in all three medical branches, he and King believed that patients did make a legitimate pointnot care if their doctor was an expert in science. Medical King also proposed forming medical societies composed of Irregular physicians and anyone else who opposed medical legislation did threaten . He believed that the survival Knights of eclectic Labor, the largest national labor union in the United States at that time, could be used as an appropriate model for these new organizations, because “medical men, after all, are but laboring men.” He asked Eclectics to “Organise [sic] Promptly” to fight medical sectlegislation. Over timeNot only should Eclectics unite with anyone who opposed medical legislation, licensed eclectic physicians began but they should also “avoid and banish” dissenters. King argued that Eclecticism faced extinction if they failed to define organize themselves and fight.<ref><i>Transactions of NEMA 1886-87</i> (1887): 167-74.</ref> In 1885, NEMA attempted to clarify its position on medical regulation. It passed three separate resolutions addressing licensing. The resolutions claimed that it was still opposed to “Partisan Legislation,” but in favor of the board of health, as they were “not empowered to act prejudicially to any class of physicians and not as eclectics.” The final resolution stated that NEMA favored “testing the constitutionality of laws” that discriminated against Eclectics. The resolution adopted the previous year, which opposed “all class medical legislation,” remained the official policy of NEMA. When AMA changed While the new resolutions were clearly an effort to clarify its policy , they still did not advocate on behalf of anything. <ref> <i>Transactions of NEMA 1885-86</i> (1886): 10.</ref> ==Conclusion==While King and invited eclectic Clark were not able to materially alter NEMA’s official stance on medical licensing, Clark’s vision for medical licensing ultimately became reality. By King’s death in 1894, medical licensing had become a permanent feature of American life. King’s complaints that medical licensing laws violated the Constitution were widely rejected. While courts occasionally expressed some skepticism about the merits and homeopathic physicians into its organizationnecessity of licensing, eclecticism lost much they universally held that the state had a strong interest in protecting the health and welfare of citizens under its vitalitypolice powers. Eventually Even in 1884, King would have been aware that these laws were consistently upheld. Ultimately, he was engaged in wishful thinking when he stated that the laws were unconstitutional. King sought to preserve the distinctions between eclectics free market of medicine just as many other people were becoming weary of it.  Noted historian and allopaths disappeared Eclectic physician, Alexander Wilder, highlighted the shifting Eclectic position. By 1901, Wilder noted that even if Eclectics had “suffered persecution and eclectics resisted it manfully” at the hands of Regulars, they were folded into not against licensing if it focused solely on “practitioners who follow methods and procedures that are not embraced in their category” instead of on Eclectics.<ref> Alexander Wilder, <i>History of Medicine. A Brief Outline of the outstretched arms American Eclectic Practice of Medicine</i>, (New Sharon, Maine, 1901), 775. </ref> King’s concerns ultimately were dismissed, and the Eclectics gradually moved towards Clark’s position. King, however, was proven prescient in the AMAend because when Eclectics accepted licensing, they gradually lost their distinctiveness and identity as a unique medical sect====References====<references/>

Navigation menu