THE SALAMAN CASE

Taranaki Daily News, 17 December 1930, Page 2

THE SALAMAN CASE

DR. G. HOME’S STATEMENT. COMMITTEE OFFERS REPLY. The following statement, signed by Mr. M. G. T. Priest as chairman, has been submitted by the “Salajrian Local Committee,” which asks that it be given ) publicity in reply to Dr. Home: — In the first place the committee is at a lows to uiideretand by What method Dr. Home is able to determine that a great deal of misapprehen<sion exists in the minds of the general public a« regards the legal aspect of this case. It is, however, apparent that .Dr. Home himself is under a serious mjisapprehension on some aspects of the case. He has apparently decided that the only deductions to be reasonably made from the evidence adduced at the trial are the deductions made by the Crown Prosecutor and tile Chief Justice There is of course another side to this aspect of the cise, which Dr. Home has Appar-ently-overlooked. We refer him to the following evidence: — (1) The evidence of Dr. Church to the effect that he was almost certain that the child’s life could have been prolonged. (2) The evidence of the various Crown witnesses,' including the medical evidence, which in its combined erfTect clearly shewed that the Christie case was not the normal or usual case of a diabetic child,' that the opinions expressed by Drs. Taylor and Boyd .at the trial could not with certainty be applied in the Christie case, that there was no satisfactory proof that the child would not have died in any event when he actually did die, and that the evidence of Drs. Taylor and Boyd was in all circumstances of the case mere conjecture, was' not legal pi'bof, and was based on incorrect assumptions and on principles which obviously did not and' could not apply. Dealing first with the evidence of' Dr. Church it must be obvious that if Dr. Church was only almost certain then it is clear that there was some doubt in his mind; and that doubt must be rpo'arded as an honest and reasonable doubt. If there was a reasonable doubt in Dr. Church’s mind surely there should have b m a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Surely if one doctor has an honest reasonable doubt then the fact that two other doctors claim to be definite should not, over-ride the opinion of the other Crown witness, Dr. Church, who is only almost certain. After all, the onus on the Crown was /definitely to prove that there was no reasonable doubt. How can it be said that there is no reasonable doubt when one of the Crown medical witnesses acknowledges that in his opinion there was a doubt? . , Dealing now with the evidence ot Drs. Taylor and Boyd, that the child s death was accelerated, it is dear that this evidence is not reliable in the circumstances of this particular case be- ’ cause that evidence is obviously based on incorrect assumptions and on medical principles which could not apply. Both those doctors had had experience of diabetic children, and in forming their opinions on Salaman’s case, they relied on that experience and on thenmedical text book knowledge /and research, and admittedly had no knowledge of the case during the clnlds life-time. As a result of that experience and knowledge and research they adopted certain principles, which they applied in Salaman’s case in order to come to their, opinions as stated m their evidence. Those principles . as adopted by the following: (ay Once a diabetic child is under insulin treatment the ceasing .of that insulin treatment for any period beyond a week is fatal, (b) That they knew of no case in which insulin has been stopped for any appreciable time without fatal results, (o) That they had no knowledge of a diabetic child dvine of diabetic coma while under insulin treatment, (d) That continuous insulin treatment -is lasting m ns effect. (e) That the normal diabetic child’s life will be prolonged for a long period by proper insulin _ treatment. These are some of the principles on which the doctors relied for their expressed opinions in this* case, and je ft is proved by the Crown case that none of the above-mentioned principles are applicable to this partieuiar case. Contrary to these principles: (a) The hoy Christie was, after insulin treatment, taken entirely off such treatment for one year and nine months and yet did not die. ,He was also insulin on several occasions (on two of which he had two severe turns diiferent in their nature). Further, Dr. Robertson took the child .off insulin treatment and also authorised the parents to do so. (b) Diabetic children have died from diabetic coma when under medical men and under insulin treatment. The death certificates prove this, aa are entitled to assume that, be--in«- under registered medical .men, the children in question were receiving proper insulin treatment up to death, ihe death certificates were undoubtedly evidence that diabetic children had died from diabetic coma while under. insulin treatment, (c) The child Christie was, according to hift mother, slipping back s-rioiisly and on the verge of death, while still under insulin treatment, He was taken to Salaman as a last resource, and although-under insulin treatment, the insulin was losing its effe ®t and his death was expected hourly. It is obvious therefore that the boy Christie was not the normal text book case -Uthat the principles applied by the doctors did not apply to his case—and that their opinions that death was accelerated are therefore based' on incorrect and fallacious assumptions and are of no true evidentiary, value jn the cireumstances of this particular ease, How can it be said that the opinions of Drs. Taylor and Boyd should override the honest doubt expressed by Dr. C’huiph? j . As regards the suggestion that » registered medical practitioner would in the same circiinwtancps be held liable for manslaughter, we venture to suggest that if the charge had been against a registered medical practitioner there would have been ample evidence forthcoming from the medical profession to distinguish the Christie ease from the normal text book case, and so secure an acquittal. Dr. Home has been pleased to re ter to what ho terms “diseases of apprehension,” and to suggest that many allowed cures are in the nature of “faith cures.’’ In the first place it. is difficult to understand what bearing these matters can possibly have ou the Christie case, .but as the question has been raised, w® say that Salaman’s capacity to cure siCk people is confirmed by indisputable and overwhelming testimony. Even if some of his cures could possibly be regarded as -faith cures,” it is no compliment to the medical profession that they have failed tp secure a recovery and have declared cases as hopeless and J’?t SaJaman has apparently cured them, ’ It is no compliment to the medical profession that the patient has sufficient faith in Salainan to enable him to effect a cure and yet the medical profession could not inspire sufficient faith from that same patient to enable a cure to be effected by the doctor concerned. AVe note that Dr. Home asserts that Salamau is not persecuted or prosecuted by the morlioa! profession, who are indifferent to him, but it is signi-

ficant that Dr. Home himself has «cen fit to publish this article obviously in an attempt to discredit both Salaman and his supporters, We ask for publication of this statement because wo feci that the public arc entitled to know that Dr. Home’s statement in regard to the case is far from conclusive and is reasonably open to t'he above criticism.