ROGET I. SABASTIER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant Sabastier was convicted of practicing medicine without a license while practicing homeopathy. The court affirmed, holding that homeopathy constitutes the practice of medicine under Florida law and requires a medical license, even though homeopaths cannot satisfy the requirement of graduating from an allopathic medical school.
Homeopathy constitutes the practice of medicine under Florida law and therefore requires a medical license. The statutory requirement that physicians graduate from allopathic medical schools does not constitute invidious discrimination. If appellant wishes to have homeopathy licensed as a profession, he must apply to the legislature for this privilege, as have practitioners of hypnosis, acupuncture, and osteopathy.
[1] Practicing homeopathy constitutes the practice of medicine under Florida Statutes Chapter 458, requiring a license.
[2] A person practicing medicine without a license in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 458 may be convicted.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Legislature recognizes that the practice of medicine is potentially dangerous to the public if conducted by unsafe and incompetent practitioners...The sole legislative purpose in enacting this chapter is to ensure that every physician practicing in this state meets minimum requirements for safe practice.”
Establishes the statutory purpose underlying the medical licensing requirement and the legislature's rationale for restricting medical practice to licensed practitioners.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSabastier engaged in the practice of homeopathy in Florida. The evidence established that his activities constituted the practice of medicine as defin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Invidious Discrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The question presented is whether a person engaged in the practice of homeopathy can be convicted for practicing medicine without a license contrary to Chapter 458 of the Florida Statutes (1985). We agree with the trial court that homeopathy cannot be practiced without a license and affirm.
The appellant argues that he does not come within the purview of Chapter 458. We find no basis for this contention. The evidence clearly establishes that he was practicing medicine as defined in section 458.305(3), Florida Statutes (1985), and accordingly he was required to obtain a license under section 458.311.
Opposing this conclusion, the appellant responds that he cannot obtain such a license, even if he were to apply for it, because he is not a graduate from an “allopathic” medical school or college as required by section 458.311(l)(b). This may be so, but in the chapter, which includes the requirement that physicians must graduate from allopathic medical schools or colleges, the legislature has set forth the following:
458.301 Purpose. — The Legislature recognizes that the practice of medicine is potentially dangerous to the public if conducted by unsafe and incompetent practitioners. The Legislature finds further that it is difficult for the public to make an informed choice when selecting a physician and that the consequences of a wrong decision could seriously harm the public health and safety. The sole legislative purpose in enacting this chapter is to ensure that every physician practicing in this state meets minimum requirements for safe practice. It is the legislative intent that physicians who fall below minimum competency or who otherwise present a danger to the public shall be prohibited from practicing in this state.
We applaud this purpose which obviously promotes the health, morals and general welfare. Nevertheless, the appellant argues that such a statutory requirement invidiously discriminates against those who have not gone to allopathic institutions. We disagree. It is true that upon consulting the dictionary for the definition of “allopathic” we discovered that it is the exact opposite of “homeopathic.” Allopathic treatment consists of the use of drugs, or agents, producing effects opposite from those of the disease, while homeopathy involves treatment by the use of remedies which actually produce, rather than oppose, in a healthy person, symptoms of the very disease being treated. Neither the record nor the briefs provide any clues as to why the legislature, in its infinite wisdom, has chosen the one over the other and we quite obviously are not qualified to make any choice on our own. Accordingly, no basis has been established to support invidious discrimination. If the appellant wishes to have his profession licensed and approved, he must apply to the legislature for this privilege, as has been done by those engaged in hypnosis, acupuncture, osteopathy and the like. Until he successfully does so, he is, in our opinion, governed by Chapter 458, “Medical Practice,” which has already survived constitutional attack. See Reams v. State, 279 So. 2d 839 (Fla.1973).
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, J., and GOLDMAN, MURRAY, Associate Judge, concur.