The Manawatu Daily Times His House Still His Castle

Manawatu Times, Volume LIX, Issue 7460, 10 May 1934, Page 6

The Manawatu Daily Times His House Still His Castle

There is a resonant medieval ring about a judgment given in the King’s Bench Division oi' the High Court of Justice in England, whereby a line of £3U has been imposed upon Lord Trcnchard, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Bohcc of London, as being responsible for an illegality committed by men unccr his control. . The judgment carries one back seven centuries to the yeui 1215, when the Barons of England in their famous Magna Charta” compelled an unwilling King John to agree thatMhc Crown might not seize such chattels belonging to freemen ns horses and carts. The almost equally well-known “Petition oi Rights” of the year 1629 is also pertinent, in it the Britisli Parliament of that day said to a reluctant King Charles J, Ail your officers and Ministers shall serve you according to the lans and statutes of this realm.” The King’s Bench of to-day has lined the head ownc London police because, in his capacity as an officer of the King, tins official has been vicariously responsible for a breach oi. these ‘‘Laws and Statutes.” The King’s Bench in fact has found two of Lord Trcnchard’s men answerable for “trespass to, and conversion and detinue of certain books and documents.” A political clement of which the King’s Bench took no notice also arose because the owners of the documents concerned had been the National Unemployed Workers’ Movement, a Socialist body associated with Labour. The case for the complaints was therefore put by Sir Stafford Cripps, a King’s counsel, who was Solicitor-General in the Labour Government of 1929-31. More public attention also was attracted than might have been otherwise. On its merits, nevertheless, the case was of greater importance than would appear, because it shows that British justice still places very strict limitations upon the actions of officials. The declaration made by Sir Edward Coke, a seventeenth century lawyer, that in England “the house of everyman is to him his castle and fortress,” thus expresses what very properly remains in the United Kingdom a live fact to-day.

Suffering of Incurables

The duties of the doctor when faced with a patient suffering from severe pain in an incurable malady are discussed in an outspoken article in a recent issue of the Practitioner. Mr. T. E. Hammond, F.R.C.S., assistant surgeon to the Royal Infirmary, Cardiff, points out that the amount of a drug which may be given by a doctor to any individual patient is entirely left to his discretion, there being no law to restrict the relief of suffering. “There is, however," he writes, “a tendency for many in the profession to concentrate on the prevention of disease and the maintenance of health and to forget that one of its aims should be the endeavour to make the living of life and the passing out from life as easy as possible for the patient and his friends. ’’ Mr. Hammond says that only too often a patient longs for an operation in the hope that it may lead to death. In his opinion no patient should ever be allowed to reach this stage. “Why should he be allowed to linger on in agony with his pain unrelieved ?” As regards the end of life, Mr. Hammond states that while a practitioner may do nothing to terminate life, “it is an abuse of the practice of medicine to go out of the way to prolong it uselessly.” He cites instances where such an abuse has been practised and points out that in acute disease over-treatment actually diminishes a patient’s chances of recovery. As a result of abandoning treatment in certain instances not only may the results be better, but if death comes the patient has an easier passage, for lie is less disturbed.