HIPPOCRATIC OATH

Evening Star, Issue 21636, 3 February 1934, Page 10

HIPPOCRATIC OATH

DOCTOR CLAIMS PRIVILEGE REFUSAL TO CIVE EVIDENCE £Px* ITsited Pkes» Assocutiok.] HAWERA, February 2. Claiming the privilege of his profession in that what ho ascertained in the course of his practice was secret, a doctor who was called as a police witness refused to give evidence in a case to-day before justices, in which a domestic servant was charged with permitting an unlawful instrument to be used upon her. •' v , - “I know the reason why 1-nave been ■ called here,” he said, “and 1 believe myself to be Quite justified in sheltering behind the Hippocratic oath of .* my profession. Anything that a doctor may ascertain in the course of his practice is entirely a secret matter between the patient and the doctor. That is an ' old-established ‘undertaking hallowed by the passage of time, and we in-the profession treat it gravely and respectfully. Of course, 1 _ recognise that where the ends of justice must he met it is due’s duty as a citizen to give every assistance to the law. I have to be persuaded that the ends of justice will be met in this case by any evidence that it lies in my power to give. ■ I do not see where 1 can be of assist- ; ance for or against-in the matter. 1 did not seek to come here. 1 was sept for. It is a shocking thing to my mind if the. public can presume that one’s word is given lightly and can bo broken j in-a casual manure. The British laws are founded largely on the public con- ; science and usage, and 1 find myself m i the difficult position of not being able to take the oath.” . Detective Meiklejohn: Do you refuse to be sworn ? . , J . The Doctor: Yes. I wish the bench ! to give me its opinion. Detective Meiklejohn: How long do • you propose to crave the. indulgence of this court? . The Doctor : I have no desire to de- , lay the proceedings in any way or hiri- ■ der the court. •, ... • Detective Meiklejohn: I ask that the i witness bo sworn. He knows full well that . according.- to the "statute he is liable for refusing to give evidence. • The bench ' considered that the witness would be . .wise to take the oath and then subsequently claim privilege, refusing to give evidence. The Doctor: You are quite emphatic on that point? The Bench: Yes. The Doctor: Could the authority be read to me? . , , The bench then proceeded to read from ‘ Arehbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence, and, Practice ’ to the effect that there was no privilege, entitling a medical practitioner to refuse to give evidence with respect to statements made to him by a patient however confidential the communication might bo, an old authority being the Duchess of Kingston case. , , Mr; R. J. O’Dea (counselfor the accused): But that is the law in i England. In New Zealand the Statute law is different. Mr ; O’Dea. quoted section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1908, which gives privilege to a‘ medical man in the case'of . civil- proceedings, and argued that the . game must apply to criminal proceed- ■ ings. The Doctor: I have given a just t reason ‘ and feel ‘ justified in refusing to be sworn. I do not want to humbug the court, but :nty difficulty is to ascertain, what good purpose is being served. Detective Sleiklejohn: That 'is not a matter for you" to determine, ’ but 'for the court. Yoii are here .to give evidence, and; 1 ask you to be sworn: : The doctor wqsthen sworn. “ I will see how far .it goes,”, he said. ■ , The,Detective: Did the accused visit your’ consulting rooms on December 3? ■ ; The Doctor ; ! must claim the-privi-lege of, the Hippocratic oath, the unwritten law,arid,, as far as 1 Know, the statutory law of New Zealand. That ,is all I aril prepared to say. The witness then stood down. , The, accused • pleaded not guilty, and was comfnittcd to the Supreme Court for trial, bail in the sum of '£so being allowed. , ,