282 
Modem  Medicine. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
June,  1915. 
tive  and  seductive  because  the  promoters  of  public  health  legislation 
knew  that  their  plans  were  for  the  public  good.  Too  often  they  have 
reasoned:  "  What  harm  will  befall  if  we  do  use  objectionable 
methods,  so  long  as  the  object  is  the  public  good  and  the  protection 
of  the  people?  "  The  argument  that  the  end  justifies  the  means  has 
too  often  been  used  to  advance  public  health  legislation.  Yet  the 
absurdity  of  such  a  method  is  evident.  When  measures  for  the  pub- 
lic good  are  proposed,  the  people  themselves  are  often  indifferent. 
They  do  not  understand  the  importance  of  such  legislation.  Now 
instead  of  making  the  people  understand  it  so  that  they  will  demand 
and  secure  sufficient  protection  for  themselves,  it  is  sometimes 
seriously  proposed  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  law  without  attempting 
to  arouse  public  support,  but  by  the  use  of  political  influences.  There 
is  undoubtedly  a  legitimate  field  for  legislation,  and  even  for  com- 
pulsory legislation,  in  bringing  pressure  on  the  indifferent,  ignorant 
or  unruly  minority  in  enforcing  police  measures  which  the  majority 
of  the  people  have  decided  are  necessary  for  the  public  safety.  But 
the  folly  of  expecting  any  permanent  good  to  result  from  the  adoption 
of  legislation  placing  restrictions  on  the  public  for  its  own  good  when 
the  majority  of  the  public  are  not  only  unconvinced  of  the  necessity 
of  such  restrictions,  but  even  unaware  of  their  purpose  or  object, 
needs  only  to  be  stated  to  be  appreciated. 
Let  it  be  clearly  understood  that  any  criticisms  of  so-called 
practical  political  methods  should  not  be  regarded  for  a  moment  as 
questioning  the  right  and  the  duty  of  the  physician  as  a  citizen  to 
take  part  in  and  participate  in  public  matters  and  legislative  bodies 
to  the  extent  of  his  ability.  The  physician  to-day,  as  a  rule,  is 
much  better  qualified  than  the  average  citizen  to  sit  as  a  member  of 
legislative  and  deliberative  bodies.  His  special  knowledge  is  of 
particular  value  to  the  State  or  the  municipality.  His  participation 
in  political  and  legislative  affairs  along  proper  lines  can  result  only  in 
good  to  society.  There  is  a  wide  field  for  the  physician  to  occupy  as 
a  citizen  and  a  man  of  affairs,  but  it  does  not  lie  in  the  realm  of 
machine  politics.  Neither  is  there  any  good  reason  why  the  physician 
as  a  citizen  should  not  do  everything  in  his  power  to  secure  and  to 
support  good  candidates  for  any  position,  legislative  or  administra- 
tive. What  I  am  contending  is  that  political  methods  cannot  be 
made  a  substitute  for  public  education  on  scientific  subjects. 
Probably  the  weightiest  criticism  which  can  be  brought  against 
the  medical  profession  in  its  public  relations  during  the  last  forty 
