Page images
PDF
EPUB

Dr. QUESSY. I do not believe that a physician is competent to go into an industry and tell the people what to do in that industry; I do not believe that the physician is competent to go into a bank and tell the bankers what to do; I do not believe that the physicians, because they are physicians, are able to be soldiers and understand about warfare, but I do believe that the physicians who have given their years of training to medicine ought to be able to know something about it, more so than people not qualified in that line.

The CHAIRMAN. Why, I have seen people cured by a good oldfashioned dose of boneset that the doctors had given up, and were cured by the boneset.

Dr. QUESSY. You may produce a few cases of hysteria, and you may talk about boneset. There may be some very clever people who dispute the ability of the doctors to do things, but the majority of the doctors are competent because they are so well trained.

The CHAIRMAN. And do you think that this bill would take anything away from the doctor?

Dr. QUESSY. If I understand right, yes; and if I do not understand it, please correct me.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you get your idea?

Dr. QUESSY. What idea?

The CHAIRMAN. That it takes anything away from the doctor. Dr. QUESSY. It takes away his personal liberties to practice and follow his own profession skillfully, and takes away the inspiration to become more competent and better his condition in life.

The CHAIRMAN. In what provision of this bill do you find that? What provision does that? That would be interesting to know. Dr. QUESSY. They do not do that, but they prevent it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that you said that it took away from the. doctors something; now, just what provision does that?

Dr. QUESSY. This bill provides I will read it provides for a method of cooperation between the Government and the several States, to provide instruction, etc. Now, as I said, it is very cleverly worded, because potentially it is going to lead up to what I am telling you. Now, it provides for "care." Now, what is "care?" That depends upon the interpretation that you want to give it.

The CHAIRMAN. You are referring to the general purpose of the bill. Get down to the specific thing that the bill does.

Dr. QUESSY. Well, I have come from Massachusetts, and my opinion was called to this within the last two days, which shows you that physicians are not able to follow legislation. I knew of this, but I did not know about the hearing

Senator WOLCOTT. When is the first time that you ever saw the bill?

Dr. QUESSY. This has been published in the United States Medical Journal for the last month. It says:

A bill for the public protection of maternity and infancy and providing a method of cooperation between the Government of the United States and the several States.

Now, I have here all of the provisions of the whole thing. I think I may be able to understand it by this. [Referring to the bill.] Senator WOLCOTT. Did that article in the medical journal set out the provisions of this bill?

Dr. It

provides for "car says that it provides for "care." This bill of yours

Senator WOLCOTT. It provides for the encouragement of educational care

The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever read this bill, Doctor?

Dr. QUESSY. This one here.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

[Indicating.]

Dr. QUESSY. If it is different from what is here [referring to the Medical Journal], I will say no.

The CHAIRMAN. You assume that this is the same as the Massachusetts bill, do you not?

Dr. QUESSY. According to this bill [indicating], yes, sir; because the Massachusetts bill provided for instruction and "care," and we beat it on that because we showed them that section 4 of the Massachusetts bill was giving administrative, judiciary, and legislative power to the State department of health.

The CHAIRMAN. Your argument is based on that, that it is the same as the Massachusetts bill?

Dr. QUESSY. Practically.

The CHAIRMAN. How much more time do you want, Doctor?

Dr. QUESSY. In section 1 of the bill-I believe I have got the thing right here page 1, the fifth line:

To be paid to the several States for the purpose of cooperating with the States in promoting the care of maternity and infancy in the several States.

Now, gentlemen, the word "care" is there.

Senator WOLCOTT. And do you understand that this bill forces the State to do anything, that it would be compelled to do anything? Dr. QUESSY. No; not compelled to, but would be forced to pushed to it. There is no compulsion about it. We understand that. Senator WOLCOTT. If I was on board ship and I was pushed overboard, I would think that I would be compelled to go overboard.

Dr. QUESSY. Massachusetts, in order to obtain this sum of money, would have to pass this bill, and there would be a great desire on the part of some people in Massachusetts to try to get some Federal

money.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any more questions.

Dr. QUESSY. Gentlemen, I wish to leave with you the thought that the bill S. 1039 provides for "care." Now, that, in the latitude of the word, that may mean medical education, or it may mean the paying of the physician, or it may mean the paying of the nurses, and it may mean the hospital bills; in fact, it may mean everything. Now, if that is adopted—and it would have to be adopted in that way in Massachusetts, otherwise they would not get the Federal moneythey would have to present to you a plan which would be approved in Washington, and to be approved, they would have to accept the provisions of the bill, and we do not want it in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has been one of the most foremost States in the humanitarian legislation. Now, if Massachusetts to-day finds that it is advisable to turn down maternity legislation, I believe that we can safely come here to Washington and recommend the turning down of maternity legislation by the Nation. I thank you.

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES O'DONOVAN.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your name?

Dr. O'DONOVAN. Charles O'Donovan.

The CHAIRMAN. And where do you live?

Dr. O'DONOVAN. Baltimore. I just want to speak very briefly, Mr. Chairman, on three distinct points. I am opposed to this bill, first, because it conflicts with the Constitution. I do not believe in overworking the general-welfare clause of the Constitution. I think that this bill distinctly invades the rights of the State and the citizens of the State. In my mind, there is no question about this.

Now, under the provisions of this bill, the State is taxed whether it comes in or not. The United States gets its money from the States. If it does not do the things which the head of the Children's Bureau in Washington orders, they do not get the benefits of it. It is held in abeyance for one year, and if they do not come in at that time, then the money coming to that State is distributed to the other States. Nevertheless, each State is taxed in order to provide this money. There is a provision in the bill which allows an appeal to the Secretary of Labor, who from? It is appealed from one of his appointees, and he will probably uphold his appointee, and it does not amount to an appeal at all, but merely cooperation between the two officials. Certainly I think that the Secretary of Labor will justify any ruling that the head of the Children's Bureau in Washington will give it.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what would you suggest as a practical appeal?

Dr. O'DONOVAN. I am opposed to the bill, root and branch. The CHAIRMAN. And can you suggest anybody in place of the Secretary of Labor to whom the appeal should be made?

Dr. O'DONOVAN. I think that the courts would be the proper place for appeal.

The CHAIRMAN. It is probably a question that is not possible to be kept out of the courts anyway.

Our

Dr. O'DONOVAN. I think that it should go to the courts. judicial system has stood the test for about 140 years, and I think that the appeal should lie to the courts. Certainly, the appeal should not come from an underlying to his superior. It puts altogether too much power in the hands of the Children's Bureau.

The second point is the question of expense. Now, I am in general practice in the city of Baltimore, and I meet up with and see people in all stations of life, I meet the rich and I meet the poor alike, and I have no hesitation in saying to this committee that the people of this country are groaning under taxation. It is a question of economy as much as anything else.

This is an experiment. I feel that the present is no time to be trying experiments that may in the end amount to nothing. It is true that this bill provides only for a million dollars, and for $480,000 for the different States, making $1,480,000, but it does call for an additional amount from the States, so that there is about $3,000,000 taken out of the pockets of the people at this time, when they are not prepared to stand for it. Now, I submit that this is no time to add to our burdens. The people are in no mood for legislation of this kind which adds to their burden of taxation, and you know

that, for that question was put up before the people of the United States last November, and the result of that election is one of the evidences that the people are looking for relief from taxation instead of being further burdened with it. So that I say that in the interest of economy, especially at this time, the long suffering people of this country feel that this bill and other bills of this kind should be killed. Certainly, at this time it should not be considered for one moment. I think that we are now spending altogether too much money. I am raising four children and taking care of myself and wife, and I am trying to keep myself looking respectable, and I say that it is a very difficult thing under the taxation laws of this country at the present time. We are paying national taxes, we are paying State taxes, we are paying municipal taxes, and each one of those taxes has increased enormously compared with what it was before the time of the war. They say that this only calls for $3.000,000 at the present time, but it is foolish to think that it is going to stop there. This bill is for the purpose of supplying information and documents and care and instruction at about 20 cents per person to each person in the United States for each person in the United States. We will say that it comes to about a dollar a family. How far will it go? So that my second plea is a plea of economy, not only for this bill, but for other legislation of the same kind.

Now, the third objection is that it does not do anything, that it does not accomplish anything. The bill, as it is written, says that these women shall be instructed and taught by apparently untrained people sent out amongst them. Now, who appoints those people? Are they from Washington or are they from the States themselves? I have read the bill over and I have tried to find out who it is that authorizes these people to go around and give nontechnical education. What in the world do we want with nontechnical education in all of the States, in such a State as Massachusetts, one of the most refined and highly educated States in the United Statss

The CHAIRMAN. That nontechnical education that you refer to in section 9, that applies, does it not, only to the lecturers? Look at that carefully. That does not apply to the nurses.

Dr. O'DONOVAN. I was taking that wording

The CHAIRMAN. It is limited to lecturing.

Dr. O'DONOVAN. I do not like to take up the committee's time, but at the same time that seemed to be an enormous disadvantage, to my mind.

The CHAIRMAN. They must be qualified lecturers, and give nontechnical instruction, as provided in section 9.

Dr. O'DONOVAN. And in case nobody is available, they can make arrangements with any educational establishment. They are authorized to arrange with any educational institution for the provision of extension courses by qualified lecturers. Any educational establishment of the State. That might mean a high school, or a grammar school, or a county school, or any kind of an educational institution. There is nothing to the bill. It is very imperfectly drawn in that respect. It does not provide anything for the women except instruction.

We have lived long enough to know how to fight against tuberculosis and all of those things, and we have made the fight, and we went out and we lectured and talked ourselves deaf, dumb, and

blind, but we never accomplished anything until we had our sanatoriums, and then we did get somewhere, and all of our help was right there. Now, in the State of Massachusetts, I do not think that talking to a woman who expects to be a mother will have any effect on her at all, in the matter of cleanliness, that she will be any better, or that she will change her circumstances or surroundings or anything of that kind. It can not do very much when it only provides 20 cents for every woman. You can not legislate against poverty, you can not legislate against the kind of depravity that you come in contact with, and in regard to the statistics that you show from Massachusetts, when you consider that there are 4,000,000 of people there, and that 2,000,000 of them are women and a great number of them are bearing children, why, the death rate seems to me to be very small, indeed. The great State of Montana, the third largest State in the United States, next to Texas and California, the largest State in the United States, it is shown that 125 women died in childbirth. It seems to me to be a very small number. Of course, I know how many die in the city of Baltimore

The CHAIRMAN. What is the population of the State of Montana? Dr. O'DONOVAN. I do not know, but it is about 450,000, I think. Now, what in the world will one or two women traveling around through the State of Montana, a State nearly as large as the State of California, what will they do? How can they save 125 women from dying from the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth?

Now, it is a bad bill for those reasons, and it is a direct interference with the reserved rights of the States as provided for in the tenth amendment to the constitution. It is an interference with the rights. of the people, and certainly if it is an interference with the rights of the people it is an interference with the rights of the State. It provides for an enormous additional expense, which will grow and grow, and nobody can tell what this entering wedge will cause us to expend in the future, and it comes at a time when the people are oppressed by taxation, and this taxation is not reduced, and the third point is that it won't do any good whatsoever.

Senator KELLOGG. Can you tell us what consideration or recommentation the American Medical Association has made in reference to this bill?

Dr. O'DONOVAN. I am sorry to say that I do not know.

Senator PHIPPS. I would like to call your attention to the language of section 8, speaking of the plan for cooperation, and the plans that are included in the provision to be made in the States for the administration of the act; the provision for instruction in the hygiene of maternity and infancy through public health nurses, consultation centers, and other suitable methods. Now, at a point in this hearing, one of the witnesses suggested that this might be made a means or a way of teaching birth control by the employees who come under the provisions of this bill

Dr. O'DONOVAN. I prefer not to express any opinion on that at all. I know the people who are pushing this bill, and know what they have done in New York City, and I would rather not publicly express an opinion on that subject. I will leave that to you

Senator PHIPPS. Do you think that it might be made a vehicle by which to spread the doctrine of birth control?

« PreviousContinue »