sis; he would not consider it improper to continue the use of chloroform after a patient has resisted its influence three-quarters of an hour; he should continue for five hours, until he had accomplished his object; a patient who resists only proves that he has not taken enough. The charge of Judge Hare is remarkable for its clear enunciation of the principles which should guide the jury in arriving at conclusions as to the existence of malpractice in this or any other case. He said:

"We know nothing of the effects of the agents of this description, except from experience, and the records of that experience are to be found in scientific works, and the evidence of men who have made it the subject of their study. The jury are, however, to decide in the last resort; but even if they doubt the safety of the agent employed, there is still a consideration of the highest reason which they ought not to disregard. All science is the result of a voyage of exploration, and the science of medicine can hardly be said to have yet reached the shore. Men must be guided, therefore, by what is probably true, and are not responsible for their ignorance of the absolute truth which is not known. If a medical practitioner resorts to the acknowledged proper sources of information, if he sits at the feet of masters of high reputation, and does as they have taught him, he has done his duty, and should not be answerable for the evils which may result from errors in the instruction which he has received. Medical opinion varies from time to time. What is taught at one period may be discovered to be erroneous at another; but he who acts according to the best known authority, is a skilful practitioner, although that authority should lead him, in some respects, wrong. He will then have done all that he

* * *

can, all that is given to man to do, and may leave the result, without self-reproach, in the hands of a higher power. If, however, you should decide that chloroform was an improper agent, or that it was erroneously administered in this instance, you will then have to consider whether the paralysis was the result of its administration. * If we were to traverse the whole circle of mankind, we might possibly find, even among healthy men, some one who could be paralyzed by its influence, or if not, still among the numerous diseases with which man is afflicted, there may occur peculiar conditions of the system in which chloroform may tend to paralysis. This topic is not irrelevant, because the medical testimony here is, that the severe blow on the head received by the plaintiff might have produced a latent disease only requiring some exciting cause to rouse it to activity. If the plaintiff was from previous circumstances, predisposed to paralysis, it might well happen that the extraction of his teeth without the chloroform, or the use of chloroform without the extraction, would bring on a paralytic attack. Even if this was the case, still it would not be just to make the defendant answerable for consequences which he could not foresee, which were not the ordinary or probable results of what he did. He was only bound to look to what was natural and probable, to what might reasonably be anticipated. There is nothing to show that he was made acquainted with the accident that had befallen the plaintiff, or had any reason to suppose that there was greater danger in his case than that of other men. Unless some such guard is thrown around the physician, his judgment may be clouded or his confidence shaken by the dread of responsibility at the critical moment, when it is all-important that he should retain the free and undisturbed enjoyment of his faculties, in order to use them for the benefit of the patient."

LVII.

MEDICAL MEN vs. MEDICAL MEN.

A

CASE has recently been tried in an Eng

lish court, which strikingly illustrates the moral obliquity of some members of our profession, when called to the witness stand during the trial of a medical brother. Instead of appearing and testifying as members of a common brotherhood, the honor and dignity of which they are bound to protect, they improve the occasion to show to the world how futile are medical facts and observations; and instead of defending a professional brother from the malicious aspersions of character to which he is subjected in the performance of his duties, they join in the prosecution, and state their opinions in such manner as to prejudice a jury against the unfortunate defendant. The case alluded to is especially aggravating from the nature of the prosecution and the character of the medical evidence adduced. The following are the facts as given by a London contemporary:

"Dr. W- gives, kindly and unfortunately, his gratuitous services, at his own house, to a hysterical female, the servant of one of his patients. He examines her with the speculum, finds superficial ulceration of the os uteri,

and applies lunar caustic six or eight times. The woman

She at last goes to Malvern, -'s care, and complains of

is long under his observation. where she comes under Dr. Ga swelling in her stomach, the nature of which was not appreciated by the extensive experience in hydropathy and homopathy of the presiding doctor. Eventually, and to her great astonishment (?), the female is delivered of the tumor in the shape of a child. She was, as her tale runs, made insensible during two hours by a potion administered to her by Dr. W- -, and in that condition the deed was effected. She named the time and day on which the thing was done. This was her statement, which the jury by their verdict, and the judge in his charge, pronounced to be an infamous lie. The woman was of the class of clever, cunning, hysterical impostors; and by her plausibility had won the complete confidence of her mistress, who, out of kindness to her servant, was determined to have justice done upon Dr. W——. We need hardly add that there was not a shadow of suspicion attaching to Dr. W- in the matter. He has been most cruelly subjected to an accusation to which every member of the profession is every hour liable. And therefore it is that he has especially the right to ask at the hands of his medical brethren their warmest sympathy and, if need be, pecuniary support."

The charge here made was of the gravest nature, affecting at once the honor of the profession and the moral character of a physician of hitherto good reputation. It would not seem possible that a medical man, having any regard for justice or for his profession, could be found who would consent to support such a prosecution by his testimony as a scientific expert. And yet three medical men were pro

duced on the part of the prosecution, and all well known in this country as high authorities. They were Dr. Robert Lee, Dr. Ramsbotham, and Dr. Taylor. It is impossible to read the evidence of these witnesses without a feeling of deep mortification. We can not divest ourselves of the impression that there is exhibited a singular want of candor and honesty, and a disposition to view the subject in a light unfavorable to the defendant. Dr. Lee seems, indeed, to have taken the position of a public prosecutor. He declared that no ulceration of the os uteri had ever existed, and that the speculum had been employed for the purpose of seduction. He took occasion to denounce the use of the speculum, and it is stated, "after leaving the witness-box he conspicuously continued to display his disapprobation of the instrument by publicly exhibiting specula of various shapes and sizes in the body of the Court, before the judge and jury, and passing them round for the special inspection of the apparently much amused rows of barristers." A London journal thus justly comments on his testimony:

"There is not an honorable mind in the entire kingdom that did not experience a sense of shame when reading the examination of Dr. Robert Lee. Gross in its levity and reckless in its assertion, as devoid of good feeling as it was deficient in scientific truth, it formed an exhibition than which anything more degrading to science and disgraceful to his profession can not be imagined. It was gross in its levity, for Dr. Robert Lee forgot that the fame, fortune,