To the Editor.
—Mr Johnson's1 critique of Judge Getzendanner's2 ruling does not go far enough. What the judge has done is to penalize the American Medical Association (AMA) because it allegedly tried to deprive the plaintiffs of their rights under the guarantees of free speech and free enterprise and thereby injured them economically. She was unable to see that a profession that exploits superstition, prejudice, and other human frailties for profit may deserve a boycott. She does not see that a therapeutic maneuver can be effective without having scientific merit. She does not see that a boycott does not eliminate chiropractic; rather, it prevents AMA members from abetting chiropractic. When she says that "the AMA decided to contain and eliminate chiropractic as a profession," she is seeing something that isn't there.This injunction needs to be countered on medical as well as legal grounds.