SHOULD DOCTORS TELL?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18760, 13 January 1923, Page 15

SHOULD DOCTORS TELL?

TO THE EDITOB

Sib, —The note on Dr Burrows’s book in your issue of this morning is interesting from more than one point of view, particularly the last question, "Should retired surgeons write about the slips of the other follow?" I think the medical profession generally answer this with a pretty decided no. But will you permit mo to say that tliis question has more than one aspect? Lot me illustrate by a statement of facts which came under my notice some years ago. A man whom I knew well had his arm broken through the slipping of tho crank of a windlass. He had the arm set by a surgeon, and when tho bandages wero removed it was found that tho arm was shorter by an inch than it was beforo it was broken. Of course, tho advice was given that the arm should bo broken again and re-set. For some reason, I think this advice was abandoned, and when I saw the man he had to bo content with the shortened arm. Ho went to an eminent surgeon, who told him that tho operation had boon shamefully performed—l am not using the eminent surgeon’s words; you wouldn't liko me to—and tho operator should be made to pay. The man consulted his lawyer, who advised him that ho had a good right to recover damages for fhe operator’s negligence. On being asked if he would take proceedings, the lawyer said; "Vos, if Dr So-and-so will say in the witness-box what you tell mo ho said to yon, I'll fee] quite justified in taking up your case.” “Oh, he’ll do that right enough," was the answer. “Well, will you call on the doctor and tell him that if you get a letter from him to the effect that he is willing to give that evidence, I shall begin the action.” “I won't be long in getting that,” he said, and went off to got it. A few hours afterwards ho again saw his lawyer and told him that the doctor refused, and said he would not give that evidence. Comment would be superfluous.—l am, etc., Nemo. Dunedin, January 11.