, society must, for its own protection, adopt some other
means than epithets to correct the evils of self-advertisement and
quackery. Even though we admit the responsibility of each citizen when
he goes to the house of a private practitioner who has made no other
effort to lure him thither than to place a card in the window, it must
be seen that we cannot hold responsible for their choice men and women
who receive through newspapers, magazines, or circulars convincing
notices that Dr. So-and-So or the Integrity Company or the Peerless
Dental Parlor will place at their disposal, at prices within their
reach, skill and devotion absolutely beyond their reach at the office
of an efficient private practitioner. Some way must be found by which
departments of health will currently impose tests of methods and
results upon physicians, opticians, pharmacists, manufacturers of
medicine, and dentists.

As laymen become more intelligent regarding their own bodies and
healthy living, it grows harder and harder for quacks and incompetents
to mislead and exploit them. Better than any possible outside safeguard
is hygienic living. Fortunately, we can all learn the simple tests of
environment and of living necessary to the selection of physicians,
dentists, and opticians, or other "architects of health" whose
efficiency and integrity are beyond question.

PART IV. OFFICIAL MACHINERY FOR ENFORCING HEALTH RIGHTS

CHAPTER XXVII

DEPARTMENTS OF SCHOOL HYGIENE

The term "school hygiene" generally suggests no other school than the
public school. State laws say nothing about compulsory hygiene in
military academies, ladies' seminaries, or other preparatory and
finishing schools. Yet when one thinks of it, one must conclude that
the right to health and to healthful school environment cannot
equitably be confined to the children whose tuition is given at public
expense. There is a better way to check "swollen" fortunes than by
ruining the health of "fortune's children." The waste and danger of
slow-minded, noticeably inefficient children are no less when parents
are rich than when parents are poor. There is no justification for
neglecting the health of children in parochial schools, in private
schools for the well-to-do or rich, or in commercial schools for the
ambitious youth of lower income strata. Nor has the commercial,
parochial, private school, or college, any clearer right than the
public school to injure or to fail to