{ "id": 5155390, "name": "People of the State of Illinois for the Use of the State Board of Health v. Mrs. Fredericka Arendt", "name_abbreviation": "People ex. rel. State Board of Health v. Arendt", "decision_date": "1895-06-03", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "89", "last_page": "91", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "60 Ill. App. 89" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "64 Ill. 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5307007 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/64/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ill. App. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4747234 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/6/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 Ill. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 Scam. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2475022 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/3/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 Ill. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2836636 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/98/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ill. App. 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4884955 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/15/0241-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 334, "char_count": 5200, "ocr_confidence": 0.491, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.22346013610183e-08, "percentile": 0.5102658494761664 }, "sha256": "9aea4d809fe0ee2fb2c8b0100ea72e0f26cc9961bd8bebd67a983540ab8ac12a", "simhash": "1:398ce3d059aa16bb", "word_count": 864 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:36.351146+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois for the Use of the State Board of Health v. Mrs. Fredericka Arendt." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Wall\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action of debt to recover a penalty for practicing medicine in violation of the provisions of \u201c An act to regulate the practice of medicine in the State of Illinois,\u201d in force July 1, 1887. The verdict was for defendant and judgment was entered accordingly, from which the present appeal is prosecuted. It appeared from the proof that defendant held herself out as a midwife and practiced in that capacity. It is urged this is not a violation of the act. We think very clearly it is.\nMidwifery is an important department of medicine, and is so recognized by the act. The law-making power of the State has enacted that \u201cNo person shall practice medicine in any of its departments in this State without the qualifications required by this act.\u201d The validity of such a law is not denied, but it is urged only that the defendant had not practiced medicine Avithin the meaning of the act. It needs no argument to show the importance of obstetrics as a department of medicine, nor the necessity that those who assume to practice in that department should possess due knowledge and skill. The welfare of their patients is certainly within the purview of the law, no less than in other departments,\nAvhere, in many instances, at least, even less care and skill may be essential, and where the consequences of ignorance and unskillfulness may be less unfortunate. The services Avhich the defendant usually rendered were not within the exceptions of \u201c emergency or the domestic administration of family remedies,\u201d mentioned in section 10.\nThe judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Wall" } ], "attorneys": [ "Pollock & Condon, attorneys for appellant,", "Livingston & Bach, attorneys for appellee," ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois for the Use of the State Board of Health v. Mrs. Fredericka Arendt.\n1. Midwifery\u2014Practice of\u2014A Department of Medicine.\u2014The practice of midwifery is an important department of medicine, and is so recognized by and is included within the provisions of the act regulating the practice of medicine in this State.\nDebt, to recover a penalty for practicing medicine in violation of law. Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County; the Hon. Thomas F. Tipton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1894.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed June 3, 1895.\nPollock & Condon, attorneys for appellant,\ncontended that the practice of midwifery is the practice of medicine within the meaning- of the statute.\nIn section 1 of the act, this language is used: \u201c Be it enacted * * * that no person shall practice medicine in any of its departments in this State unless * * * \u201d Is not midwifery, or obstetrics, a department of the practice of medicine, and a very important department ? There is no general medical work which does not devote much space to, nor a medical college which does not have a chair of obstetrics. But to show conclusively that midwifery is within the intendments of the act, section 7 provides for an examination in midwifery only, and the issuance of a certificate to those who successfully pass the examination.\nLivingston & Bach, attorneys for appellee,\ncontended that the statute is highly penal and must be strictly construed and not extended by implication to either persons or things not expressly within its terms. Reinecke v. The People, 15 Ill. App. 241; People v. Peacock, 98 Ill. 172.\nIt can not be extended by construction beyond its clear meaning. Raplee v. Morgan, 2 Scam. 561; Siegel v. The People, 115 Ill. 89.\nWould people, ordinarily, speaking of the practice of medicine and surgery, think of including the practice of midwifery? Would they, in speaking of midwifery, think it included in the practice of medicine ? If not, then midwifery can not be included in the penalty section of this statute, because the words should be taken in their natural\u00bb plain, obvious and ordinary signification and import. Herring v. Poritz, 6 Ill. App. 208; Way v. Way, 64 Ill. 406.\nThe title of this act is, \u201cAn Act to Eegulate the Practice of Medicine in the State of Illinois.\u201d It does not mention midwifery or obstetrics, nor can it by any reasonable construction be made to include it; and, therefore, all that part of the act relating to that branch of science is unconstitutional. Midwifery is a distinct science, and is as much different from the science of medicine - as is dental surgery. The legislature enacted a separate act regulating the practice of dental surgery, and should do likewise concerning the practice of obstetrics, in order to make it constitutional.\nMidwifery is not the practice of medicine or surgery. \u201cAs parturition is in general a mere effort of nature, we have seen that, ordinarily, all attendants are considered as merely assisting nature, and not as performing a surgical' operation, and therefore unscientific women are allowed to interfere.\u201d Ohitty\u2019s Medical Jurisprudence, 420.\nThe practice of medicine and surgery are pursuits very generally known. \u201cThe former includes the application and use of medicine and drugs for the purpose of curing, mitigating, or alleviating bodily disease, while the functions of the latter are limited to manual operations, usually performed by surgical instruments.\u201d Smith v. Lane, 24 Hun (N.Y.), 633." }, "file_name": "0089-01", "first_page_order": 87, "last_page_order": 89 }