Opinion of the Court.

20 R. I., 632; Hall v. State, 20 Ohio, 7; Denbow v. State, 18 Ohio, 11; Mitchell v. State, 42 Ohio St., 383; Evans v. State, 9 Dec., 222; 6 N. P., 129; Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio St., 387; McGatrick v. Wason, 4 Ohio St., 566; Const. U. S., 1st Amendment; Const. Ohio, art. 1, sec. 7; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall., 728; Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S., 333; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S., 145; State v. Liffring, 61 Ohio St., 39; Palmer & Crawford v. Tingle, 55 Ohio St., 423; State v. Gardner, 58 Ohio St., 599; State v. Biggs, 133 N. C., 729; State v. Gravett, 65 Ohio St., 289; Noel v. People, 187 Ill., 587; Webster's Inter. Dict., p. 41, supp.; Standard Dict., p. 336; 27 Encyclopedia Brittannica (new vol.), 60; 4 New Inter. Encyclopedia, 589; 7 Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia, 381; Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia, year books for 1897, 1900 and 1901; Chicago v. Netcher, 183 Ill., 104; Const. U. S., 14th Amendment; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S., 27; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S., 356; Soon High v. Crowley, 113 U. S., 703; Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S., 114; Wheeling Bridge & Tr. Co. v. Gilmore, 4 Circ. Dec., 366; 8 C. C. R., 658; secs. 4403c, 4403d, 4403f, 4403g, 7305 and 7306, Rev. Stat.

SUMMERS, J. The right to practice medicine has been so long and so universally subject to state regulation that it might almost be said to be not an absolute right but a privilege or franchise. Assuming, however, that it is an absolute right, it is conceded that it is subject to such reasonable regulations or conditions as the state in the exercise of the police power may prescribe. France v. The State, 57 Ohio St., 1; The State of Ohio v. Gardner, 58 Ohio St., 599.

Opinion of the Court.

The contention of counsel for the defendant is, first, that prescribing, for a fee, Christian Science treatment for the cure of a bodily ailment is not practicing medicine within the meaning of the statute; second, that Christian Science is a religious belief and that defendant in giving the treatment, did so in obedience to a religious and conscientious duty or, in other words, was worshiping God according to the dictates of his conscience, and that a statute interfering therewith is unconstitutional as depriving him of his natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience; third, that if Christian Science is a school of medicine the act discriminates against Christian Science in that it has made provision for the examination of the practitioners of other schools of medicine that are related to other theories of medicine but that it has made no such provision for the Christian Science practitioner, but on the contrary requires him to take the same examination that is prescribed for the so-called regular physician.

It is not necessary to notice the various statutes regulating the practice of medicine that have been passed in this state. The first was passed in 1811 and numerous acts have since been passed down to the act of 1902 involved in the present controversy. Reference is made to them in the briefs of counsel in State of Ohio v. Gravett, 65 Ohio St., 289. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that in 1896 a comprehensive act, entitled "An act to regulate the practice of medicine in the state of Ohio," was passed. It provided a state board of medical registration and examination and that no person should practice medicine, surgery or mid

Opinion of the Court.

wifery, in any of its branches in this state without first complying with the requirements of the act. Its requirements were to the effect that a person engaged in the practice must obtain a certificate from the board upon a showing either that he was a graduate in medicine or surgery, or a legal practitioner under the laws then in force, or upon such examination before the board as to his qualifications as the board might require, and as to a person practicing midwifery, that she should obtain a certificate from the probate judge of the county in which she resides.

So much of the section defining who shall be regarded as a practitioner of medicine and surgery within the meaning of the act, as is necessary to an understanding of the question determined, is here set out, and as subsequently amended, the changes being indicated by the words in italics.

"Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine or surgery within the meaning of this act who shall append the letters M. D. or M. B. to his name, or for a fee prescribe, direct or recommend for the use of any person, any drug or medicine or other agency for the treatment, cure or relief of any wound, fracture or bodily injury, infirmity or disease; provided, however, that nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit service in case of emergency, or the domestic administration of family remedies." (February 27, 1896, 92 O. L., 47.)

"Sec. 4403f. Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine or surgery or midwifery within the meaning of this act, who shall use the words or letters 'Dr.,' 'Doctor,' 'Professor,' 'M. D.,' 'M. B.,' or any other title, in connection with his name, which in any way represents him as engaged in the practice

Opinion of the Court.

of medicine or surgery or midwifery, in any of its branches, or, who shall prescribe, or who shall recommend for a fee for like use any drug or medicine, appliance, application, operation or treatment, of whatever nature, for the cure or relief of any wound, fracture or bodily injury, infirmity or disease. The use of any of the above mentioned words or letters, or titles in such connection, and under such circumstances as to induce the belief that the person who uses them is engaged in the practice of medicine or surgery or midwifery in any of its branches, shall be deemed and accepted as prima facie proof of an intent on the part of such person to represent himself as engaged in the practice of medicine or surgery or midwifery, provided, however, that nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit service in the case of emergency, or the domestic administration of family remedies." (April 14, 1900, 94 O. L., 200.)

The section as amended April 21, 1902 (95 O. L., 212), is not changed in the particular part under consideration.

In the State of Ohio v. Liffring, 61 Ohio St., 39, it was held that osteopathy was not an "agency" within the meaning of the act of 1896 and in the State of Ohio v. Gravett, supra, it was held that it was within the meaning of the statute as amended in 1900.

In the opinion in the latter case, Shauck, J., referring to the former case, says: (306, 307)

"The view then urged by the attorney general was that the system of rubbing or kneading the body, known as osteopathy, is an 'agency' within the meaning of the statute; but the interpretation of the statute seemed to invoke the maxim noscitur a sociis as an aid in determining the meaning of the word,

Opinion of the Court.

and our conclusion was that it meant something of like character with a drug or medicine to be administered with a view to producing effects by virtue of its own potency; and that it, therefore, did not include osteopathy.

"It seems quite clear that in its present form the statute affords no proper occasion for the application of the maxim of interpretation by which we were aided in State v. Liffring, supra. Careful comparison of the two acts with respect to their definitions of the practice regulated shows that while in the former the legislature intended to prohibit the administration of drugs by persons not informed as to their effect or potency, by the latter it has attempted a comprehensive regulation of the practice of the healing art; so far, at least, as to require the preparatory education of those who, for compensation, practice it according to any of its theories. The comprehensive language of the statute and the purpose which it clearly indicates require the conclusion that osteopathy is within the practice now regulated."

The conceded facts are that the defendant did not recommend or prescribe for the cure or relief of Christ Hehl any drug, medicine, appliance, application or operation, but on the contrary that he made no diagnosis or any physical examination, gave him no directions as to food, diet, exercise or any other directions, nor did he make any inquiry as to the nature of the disease with which he was afflicted. The only thing he did was to offer prayer for his recovery. He was called to see Hehl for rheumatism, but called on him but once, and after that gave him what is among the followers of Christian Science