The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-02 00:00:00

We are to assume that he is ordering all things for
our good ; and this, as a general rule, is received
without objection. The principle is admitted. It
is, indeed, the principle we act upon in all our
worldly dealings, We put ourselves in the hands
of our lawyers, as well as our doctors. We trust
oar clerks, our shopmen, and our servants. In
railways and steamboats we resign ourselves to the
direction of captains and drivers. But we do so
on the clear and well-defined understanding that
we are committing ourselves and our interests and to
persons who are responsible for their conduct,
the sense of their respOnsibility is the root of our
confidence. The medical profession, hoNvever, as
represented in this case, admit of no respo,asibility
where the action taken cannot be shown ta be
negligent or malicious, as well as erroneous. As "•
matter of fact there can be no doubt that Mrs.
Symm was in a state of delirium tremens when 6)0
called in Dr. Fraser and Dr. Andrews, and that
their treatment was, on the whole, ?roper, and eel'
tainly for her benefit. There can be no doubt,
about the justice of the verdict they have obtained.
But doctors are not infallible; they are liable to
make mistakes even as all men are; and it grs•
Symm had been suffering from any other diseaste•-•
travelling gout, as was suggested—the error of Iler
medical attendants would, we apprehend, hoe'
re
been held to be an error of judgment only. 8e
ye
is that the shoe pinches. Mrs, Symm may havee
nt'
reason to be thankful that, through the rests
imposed upon her, her life was saved, or that she
was saved from a lunatic asylum, or at all events
from publicly disgracing herself, and she may be a
very ungrateful woman ; at the same time it is'
possible to dissemble the importance of the iss•nds
that was raised in her case, or the length an'
breadth of the power we are placing in the bane'
of our medical attendants. It cannot, indeed, be
denied that great wrongs may be inflicted through-
the agency of the quasi-legal proceedings the ver;
diet in this case has confirmed and author iced ; and'
looking at the question apart from the merits of anY
particular case, it presents matter for very
serious
consideration. If persons in a state of deiiritll
tremens require, as they evidently do, to be watcbe
tel
and restrained as lunatics, it may be asked will
they are not treated under the provisions of 0(3
of lunacy ? Defective as that law is, it provities
certain security against the confinement, thre'agd"
mistake or otherwise, of persons who are sane; '9,„
it might perhaps be possible and convenient to BM )'"
some check, some provision based on principle
such, for example, as waa voluntarily adopted
Mrs. Symm's case, in the consultation and concur
rence of three physicians—to meet the evils which'
could arise from placing such large powers in the
hands of an individual. As the Lord Chief Justiee,
observed in the course of his lucid and impartial,
summing up, it is very rarely that we hear °'
medical men abusing their privileges; and,
they eminently merit the public confidence. Never-
theless, and if only to relieve them as individuala
of a responsibility which is exceedingly onerous'
not to say odious, something of this kind roightl
we should think, be made a rule of professions,
practice. It is highly desirable that the public WTI
the medical profession should understand es
°f
other, and, in that sense, good may come out "'
this trial. We knew before that doctors were everi,
day restraining their patients by advice, but it Iva'
not, we believe, generally apprehended that the,'
claimed the right to enforce their directions in
as a body,
certain cases by personal coercion. We are also
inclined to think that the defendants were not gads
clear on the point themselves, and the absence of at
plea of justification, on which the Lord Ci.bi%
Justice remarked, sustains this impression-
fair, however, to say that Dr. Fraser send 3-:
Andrews stand fully exonerated from all moral ll'
well as all legal blame. It would have beet' to
satisfactory it' they had obtained the evidenced,
Taylor, and people generally would have been bel;
ter pleased if they had exercised the power theif
claim over a patient to prevent the employmen•t °
a male keeper ; but altogether, and in a case of on;
siderable difficulty, they appear to have acted miltst
sound reason and remarkable discretion. They ad
also, as regards the hardship o having to clef s%
themselves against the action of a person who 11,a,
benefited by the treatment she complained of,
titled to the sympathy they will no doubt reeei`;
If, as we have heard, the costs and damages incurre'
by the defendant in Hall v. Semple were paid by at
professional subscription, the same course will el°s
likely be pursued in a case where such a testimo'
uial has been much better deserved.