Changes

{{Mediawiki<youtube>https:kindleoasis}}//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BmGw3a-JDQ</youtube>  

In 1872, American physicians were not licensed anywhere in the United States. Medicine was completely unregulated , and anyone could claim to be a physician. Most American physicians could be classified as either a regularsregular, homeopaths , or eclectics. These three medical sects were in brutal competition with each other. Regulars were part of a medical sect that could trace its roots to ancient Rome. Homeopaths and eclectics were part of medical sects that had been founded in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The ineffectiveness of Regular medical practice 's ineffectiveness encouraged people to explore new medical ideas that led to the creation for distinct medical sects. These new medical groups found willing patients who were understandably skeptical of traditional medicine.

These three sects were operating in an environment unencumbered by any meaningful regulation. Over the next thirty years, that would change dramatically. While regular physicians were predisposed to advocating for some type of medical licensing, state legislatures had so far expressed little interest in creating any medical licensing. Up until that point , nothing had occurred to galvanize widespread support for medical licensing until the summer of 1872.

====A Tragic Death====In late August 1872 in New York City, a young pregnant woman named Alice Augusta Bowlsby read an advertisement in the newspaper for a Dr. Ascher. The advertisement stated that Dr. Ascher could help “[l]adies in trouble, guaranteed immediate relief, sure and safe; no fee required until perfectly satisfied; elegant rooms and nursing provided.”<ref> ''New York Herald'', classified advertisement, August 29, 1871.</ref> Bowlsby went to Ascher’s office , where he performed an abortion. Bowlsby died from Ascher’s botched abortion, and her tragic death provided an opportunity for New York’s organized Regulars to open the debate for medical licensing.

The ''Times'' relentlessly reported on the Bowlsby case because it was not only a headline-grabber, but it gave allowed the newspaper an opportunity to batter one of its chief rivals, the ''New York Herald''. The Times had a golden opportunity to accuse the Herald of enabling abortionists and hypocrisy. Soon after Bowlsby’s death, the Herald ran an editorial condemning abortionists. However, but the Herald’s editorial staff failed to notice that Rosenweig’s alias, Dr. Ascher, still advertised in the Herald's classified section. NaturuallyNaturally, the Times was overjoyed at the chance to castigate the Herald. While the Times may have had difficulty containing its glee, a quick scan of the ''New York Times'' classified section reveals that it, too, ran numerous advertisements for dubious doctors.

The Bowlsby case was not the first abortion case to get publicity in 1871 in New York City. The New York City police had previously arrested two other physicians, Dr. Michael Wolff and Dr. Thomas Lookup Evans, for performing abortions that year. Both cases garnered media interest in New York City, but they did lead led to any broader action by the medical communityaction. Dr. Michael Wolff was convicted of second-degree manslaughter after the death of one of his patients. The In that case, the presiding judge in that case, Gunning Bedford, sentenced Wolff to seven years in prison and began a campaign in New York City campaign to stamp out an abortion. Bedford also presided over the trial of the other abortionist, Lookup Evans. Evans was charged with performing an abortion that killed twins. The Times refused to describe Evans’ alleged crime in the newspaper because it was of such a “revolting character” that it was completely “unfit for publication.”<ref> “Lookup Evans Again.” ''New York Times'', May 13, 1871, 2.</ref>

====Establishing Medical Licensing====Judge Bedford spoke to the members of the New York Academy of Medicine members on September 30th at the start of the Bowlsby case. These prominent abortion cases convinced Bedford that New York City was “living in an atmosphere of abortion.” He stated that the authorities would “strain every nerve until these traffickers in human life be are exterminated and driven from existence.” Aside from prosecuting abortionists under the law, Bedford argued that the legislature should change the penalty for abortion or abortion-related deaths from second-degree manslaughter to first-degree murder. If convicted of first-degree murder, doctors could be executed for botched abortions.<ref> “Judge Bedford’s Late Charge on Abortion – Complimentary Resolutions by the New York Academy of Medicine,” September 30, 1871, ''New York Times''.</ref> At the same meeting, members of the New York Academy of Medicine passed a resolution promising to “promote public health and public morals” and pledged to support “any legislative or other measures” advocated by law enforcement officials to “remove the pestilence of criminal abortion.”<ref> Judge Bedford’s Late Charge on Abortion – Complimentary Resolutions by the New York Academy of Medicine, September 30, 1871, ''New York Times''.</ref>

==Lobbying Physicians==“Medical Bowlsby’s “Trunk Murder” and legal members” of Bedford’s campaign merged and convinced members within the New York Medico-Legal Society had drafted “An Act to Protect the People against Quackery and Crime” two years earlier, but medical community that it received little or legislative supportwas time they eliminated abortionists from their ranks. Soon after Abortionists undermined doctors' already questionable reputations and lowered the Bowlsby case, Stephen Rogers, M.Dprofession's standing in the public’s eyes. In step with Bedford’s proposal ratcheting up the abortion laws, a member of the Medical Society of the State members of New York and the President of the New York Medico-Legal Society, believed that it was critical for the New York medical community argued that doctors had to stamp out abortion and focused be regulated by the Medico-Legal Society on that mission. Not surprisingly, he believed that a medical licensing law was the best way state to do it. Rogers’ primary goals as stem the societycity's president was to pass medical licensing and a new severe tide of tragic abortion lawcases. The Times reported on January 12 the Medico-Society proposed a “bill against quacks” which had authorized the creation of county Prominent Regular physicians wanted to stigmatize physicians who performed abortions with medical societies. These county societies would each appoint five censors who would examine “resident practitionerslicensing.” The proposed bill permitted prosecuting any unlicensed Regular physicians “for obtaining money under false pretenses.” After began to argue that medical licensing was the Medico-Legal Society approved the draft bill, it agreed only effective way to print copies of the bill for distribution around the state.<ref>“Medical Legal Society: A Bill Against Quacks,” ''New York Times'', Jan. 12, 1872, 8stop abortionists from plying their trade.</ref>

Rogers, along with other members ====Lobbying Physicians====“Medical and legal members” of the Regular sectNew York Medico-Legal Society had drafted “An Act to Protect the People against Quackery and Crime” two years earlier, accepted that the state’s failure to regulate physicians permitted abortionists to prosperbut it received little or legislative support. An East River Medical Association of New York report discussing abortion argued that “the unrestricted practice of medicine was Soon after the main Bowlsby case for the existence of professional abortionists, Stephen Rogers, M.” The report contended that only medical licensing could eliminate abortionD.<ref>James C. Mohr, ''Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution a member of National Policy'', (Oxford University Press, 1978), 160, citing the East River Medical Association, Report Society of the State of New York and the President of the Special Committee Criminal Abortions, (New YorkMedico-Legal Society, 1871), 3-4.</ref> While Rogers concluded believed that strengthening it was critical for the penalties for criminal New York medical community to stamp out abortion were importantand focused the Medico-Legal Society on that mission. Not surprisingly, he argued believed that only a medical licensing had law was the power best way to stop abortionsdo it. Rogers, along with most Regular physicians, believed that most abortionists could not meet even minimum Rogers’s primary goals as the society's president weree to pass medical licensing requirementsand new severe abortion law. Even if a licensing board did give an abortionist a licenseThe Times reported on January 12, the state’s Regulars contended Medico-Society proposed a “bill against quacks” that strong licensing board should be granted authorized the creation of county medical societies. These county societies would each appoint five censors who would examine “resident practitioners.” The proposed bill permitted prosecuting any unlicensed physicians “for obtaining money under pretenses.” After the Medico-Legal Society approved the power draft bill, it agreed to revoke licenses print copies of the bill for unprofessional behaviordistribution around the state.<ref>“Medical-Legal Society: A Bill Against Quacks,” ''New York Times'', such as performing abortionsJan. 12, 1872, 8.</ref>

Roger ended up lobbying numerous regular and irregular medical organizations including Rogers, along with other members of the New York County Medical SocietyRegular sect, accepted that the state’s failure to regulate physicians permitted abortionists to prosper. An East River Medical Society Association of New York, report discussing abortion argued that “the unrestricted practice of medicine was the New York State Medical Society, main cause for the New York chapter existence of the American Institute of Homeopathyprofessional abortionists.” The report contended that only medical licensing could eliminate abortion.<ref> see Stephen Rogers, M.DJames C., “The True Object of Medical Legislation”Mohr, ''Papers Read Before the Medico-Legal Society Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of New York From its OrganizationNational Policy'' , (New York: W.F. Vanden HoutenOxford University Press, 18821978), 117 and ''Transactions 160, citing the East River Medical Association, Report of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1873''Special Committee Criminal Abortions, (New York, 1871), Volume 26: 5243-5254.</ref> While many individual Rogers concluded that strengthening the penalties for criminal abortion was important, he argued that only medical licensing had the power to stop abortions. Along with most Regular physicians opposed , Rogers believed that most abortionists could not meet even minimum medical licensingrequirements. Even if a licensing board did give an abortionist a license, Rogers was able to garner support from the state’s Regulars contended that a number of these organizations. The support of these institutions lent credibility to strong licensing efforts and board should be granted the New York House and Senate power to pass these medical licensing lawsrevoke licenses for unprofessional behavior, such as performing abortions.

Roger ended up lobbying numerous regular and irregular medical organizations including the New York County Medical Society, the Medical Society of New York, the New York State Medical Society, the New York chapter of the American Institute of Homeopathy.<ref> see Stephen Rogers, M.D., “The True Object of Medical Legislation,” ''Papers Read Before the Medico-Legal Society of New York From its Organization'' (New York: W.F. Vanden Houten, 1882), 117 and ''Transactions of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1873'', Volume 26: 524-525.</ref> While many individual physicians opposed licensing, Rogers was able to garner support from a number of these organizations. The support of these institutions lent credibility to licensing efforts and the New York House and Senate to pass these medical licensing laws. ====Conclusion====Ultimately, Governor John Thompson Hoffman vetoed the medical licensing bill, but this was one of the earliest and most successful efforts to establish medical licensing in the United States. <ref>Stephen Rogers, M.D., “The New Medical Law of the State of New York,” ''New York Medical Journal'', Vol. XX, July 1874, No. 1: 70-72.</ref> The medical community's efforts to pass medical licensing did not occur in a vacuum. Physicians throughout the United States were remarkably well connected. Organizations such as the American Medical Association served as a hub for the national community. State and local organizations across the country quickly became aware of the attempt by New York's medical community 's attempt to enact medical licensing. In other states, medical groups would quickly follow the lead of their New York brethren. Unlike the New York physicians, they started to become successful in their efforts to pass medical licensing medical legislation. Similiarly Similar to the physicians in New York, they tied licensing to other unrelated public health measures such as stronger anti-abortion laws or sanitary legislation.<ref>Sandvick, Clinton (2016) ''Defining the Practice of Medicine: Licensing American Physicians, 1870-1907'' (2016).</ref>

 ====Related DailyHistory.org Articles====*[[What was the dominant medical sect in the United States during the 19th Century?]]*[[How did Medicine develop in the Ancient World?]]*[[Causes of World War II Top Ten Booklist]]*[[Gilded Age/Progressive Era {{#dpl:category=Medical History Top Ten Booklist]]|ordermethod=firstedit|order=descending|count=8}}

====References====

[[Category:United States History]] [[Category:19th Century History]] [[Category:Medical History]]