Dent v. West Virginia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Dent v. West Virginia | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||
| Decided January 14, 1889 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| The state can set reasonable requirements to obtain a medical license. | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Melville Fuller Associate Justices: Samuel Freeman Miller, Stephen Johnson Field, Joseph Philo Bradley, John Marshall Harlan, Thomas Stanley Matthews, Horace Gray, Samuel Blatchford, Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: Field Joined by: unanimous court |
Dent v. West Virginia, , was an important United States Supreme Court case involving the reputable practice of physicians and state laws in the late nineteenth century.
Contents |
[edit] The Case
Frank Dent was physician of the Eclectic sect, a group which accepted and taught the conventional medical science of the time. However, in the area of therapeutics, the Eclectics carried on a rigorous campaign against excesses of drugging and bleeding, which were still practices used by many physicians at the time. In addition, all but one of their medical schools were open to women.
Dent had been in practice for six years when he was convicted under an 1882 West Virginia law which required physicians to hold a degree from a reputable medical college, pass an examination, or prove practice in West Virginia for the previous ten years. In this case, the State Board of Health refused to accept Dent's degree from the American Medical Eclectic College of Cincinnati.
[edit] The Decision
Justice Stephen Field delivered the Court's unanimous opinion which upheld the West Virginia statute. Field noted that each citizen had a right to follow any lawful calling, subject to natural restraints such as age, sex, etc., as well as state restrictions, as long as those state restrictions were reasonable. In addition, the Court ruled that medicine, because of the careful nature of its training, the large knowledge of the human body required of doctors, and nature of life-and-death circumstances with which doctors dealt, reliance needed to be placed on the assurance of a license. Certain circumstances might prompt states to exclude people without licenses from practicing medicine.
[edit] Aftermath
Later, the Court would extend its decision in the case Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898) when it ruled that character was also an important qualification for doctors wishing to obtain a license.
[edit] See also
- Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898)
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 129
