ETIQUETTE EXTRAORDINARY

NZ Truth, Issue 578, 15 July 1916, Page 7

ETIQUETTE EXTRAORDINARY

THE RULES OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION

DR. CAWKWELL'S * MORAL OBLIGATION "

Declines to Attend a Dying Child

The Father Speaks His Mmd — And Medico Cawkwell Complains, bat receives No Sympathy from the Magistrate

(From "Truth's" Auckland Rep.)

A story which should provide good food for thought was unfolded at the Auckland Police Court on Tuesday last when Alexander Burns was charged with assaulting George L. Cawkwell. Burns, for whom Mr. W. E. Hackett appeared, is a machinist employed at the railway workshops, while Cawkwell is a doctor. Lawyer Ostler appeared for the medico. The facts were not generally denied, and ■.-.■.,.... THE STORY AS TOLD by Dr. Cawkwell m evidence was that about midnight on June 23 a man called and asked him to come and attend a child who was very ill. Witness asked if any other medico had attended the child, and was told that Dr, Dudley had attended, but that the man j had tried to get him but could not. Witness said that he would not interfere with another doctor's patient, and told the caller to again try and get Dr. Dudley, who lived close to Mr. Burns's, whose child was' ill. The following day Burns accompanied by a lady called at witness's house and to witness said, "My child has died and I hold you responsible for its death." To which witness replied that Dr. Dudley was Burns's doctor. Burns then said that Dr. Dudley had told him that if witness had gone to the child when asked its life might have been saved. Burns then called witness "a murderer," "a cur," "a swine," and "a dirty hound," and said that if he got witness outside HE WOULD MURDER HIM, at the same time catching hold of witness and trying to drag him outside. Just then Mrs. Dobbie, the housekeeper, intervened and induced Burns to go quietly away. Witness's wife had only arrived home after undergoing 'a serious operation at the hospital, and she heard the disturbance and had been unwell since. . ■ Mr. Hackett: The man who called told you that the child was dying?— -No, he said it was very ill. And when he told you that Dr. Dudley had been attending it and that a man had been unable to get him again ypu said It was none of your business and that you would not go? — I told him that I did not interfere with another doctor's patients. You know that the railway employees were going to hold an indignation meeting to protest against what they called your callous conduct?— l don't know about that. Burns told me that Dr. Dudley said that if I had gone when called, the child's life might have been saved. Dr. Dudley told me he said no such thing.

Well, we don't want what Dr. Dudley told. you; he can. speak for himself. Now, do you say that m cases of emergency you cannot interfere with another doctor's patients? Is that the creed to which the honorable doctors of this town subscribe? Do you say that you are not obliged to attend? — There is no legal obligation on me to attend. In A CASE OF LIFE AND DEATH, do you rely on legal obligations? His Worship: I think it is hardly fair to put an extreme case, Mr. Hackett. In an extreme case there is a strong moral obligation. Mr. Hackett (to witness) : Burns called on you and asked you if you were Dr. Cawkwell? — Yea. And ho then said that his child' had died and that you were responsible for its death?— Words to that effect. Didn't you say, "What's that- got to do with me, it's no business of mine," and turned to go inside when Burns caught hold of you and said, "Walt a ! minute, I want to tell you what I think of you"'? — He did catch hold of me and | threaten me. You say that he called you "A murderer?" — Yes. la there another person who heard him use the adjective? — I can't say. ' Did he say, holding up his (Ist, that he ought to put it through you? — He was excited and threatened to murder ' mo if ho had mo outside. Now, did not the caller on tho night when you were asked to go to tho child, tell you the child was dylnrg? — No. He said it was very 111. And you did not go?r-No, Didn't Burns Bay he hoped if you hud children of your own that you would never have to rely on "A CUR LIKE YOURSELF' and sit and watch your child din?— Something like that. Tho housekeeper, Mury Dofofolo. said she heard Hums calling the doctor "a dirty monprol." "a cur," etc., saw him holding tho doctor, iwul hennl him Bay thiit be hoped if tho doctor had ,any children he would not have to rely on "a cur" like tho doctor and see them dk i . Witness persuade*! Burns, who was excited, to go nwny. Burns n««<l threuiM to tlio doctor.

Tho defendant. Alexander Rnrns, then wont into the box and wild that on the Friday. Or. Dudley had attended tho child and said ll.s U lncus \va» very serlouu. On Halurday uIkIU the child bec<mte worse, and wltnesa asked a nian named Uranium to go for Dr. Dudley. Hrannon returned, and said that he had been unable to get an answer afc Dr. Dudley'H. and wltnexs tlmu said he thought tho child wax dylnfj. Brannon went off to Dr. Cawkwell, who was only about 300 yards away, and returned to aay that Dr. Cawkwell rcfuaod to come, becauao the patient belonged to Dr, Dudley, and advlaed him to again try and g?t Dr. Dudley. Wltnen* then went, and this time nueceeded In arousing Dr. Dudley, who came, but tho child died shortly afterwards. On tluj following day he went to his uHU'r-ln-law'B pla«*«» to tell her of thu chllti'K death, and on the way buck • ■ailed at Dr. CowkwcU'« residence m Hcmuoni to tell the medico hix <lnirn«'H> opinion of him for not cominj; when t<»!d the child wa* dytnif. Thfc dwlor r«-i»W"d. that It had

Xf»THfNO TO DO WITH HIM. Th,> iiru-nu''ji chUouh tj!;tnn<T provoked vitr.iw Into rntHng blrn ";i cur" urvJ "i.'ion^r.'l." Wifticriii did »<>t uw ih'j word ■■"murdort-r" Urn! !»«* desired to

assault the doctor he could have done so.

Stephen Brannon gave evidence as to calling on Dr. Cawkwell and telling him that he thought the child was dying.

Dr. Dudley said that when he saw the child there was no hope of saving it, and he did not think it would have made any difference had a medical man been m attendance half an hour earlier. What is the custom respecting medical etiquette if a doctor is told a patient is very ill and that the other doctor attending it cannot be secured? —The practice is to go. The trouble Is, mistakes are likely to arise, because m nine out of every ten calls at night the case is stated to be ur-. gent when it is not .«»o and a few hours would make no difference. Consequently, doctors get suspicious of night calls. ' His Worship said that doctors generally complained of people refrainIng from calling them tiU night time, and often a case was stated to be urgent when it was not so. In the present case the evidence was generally similar and there was really very littlo m conflict. Dr. Cawkwell admitted being told the" child was very 111, and it would have been wiser had ho followed Dr. Dudley's rule and gone to the case. There was a strong moral obligation to answer the call as he had been told that the caller was unable to get Dr. Dudley. Dr. Cawkwell had evidently mistaken THE RULE OF ETIQUETTE and declined to go. Tho father of tho child believed the infant's life would have been saved and went to Dr. Cawkwell to express his opinion of him. The doctor, m his Worship's opinion, adopted an entirely wrong attitude, which provoked the defendant. It was to be regretted the case had come to Court and one would have thought Dr. Cawkwell would have realised the feelings of the father, even if he himself were unconscious of blame. Tho case would be dismissed. Lawyer Hackett aaked for costs, which were granted against the doctor, The costs amounting to £3 16.

5