New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-05-13
M1IPRdCTIGE.

Actions at law against medical men for NAL
practice, especially when brought by heirs,
executors, or administrators, are of doubtful
validity. The patient and physician, as the
original parties to the contract are in the
same implied position which buyer and seller
in market overt occupy; and there 10 no
reason why to their relation the rule OF CdUedt
emptor should not apply. The sick man when
he chooses his doctor runs the risk OF getting
a good or bad one, and tie doctor can con-
tract for the employment OF no more skill
than he possesses. If he is to be held for
every error of judgment, why may he not be
held for treating disease geographically when,
in the opinion of the court and jury, he should
have proceeded upon the system commonly
called alopathic. This would be to put medi-
cal systems upon their trial and If we are to
come to that, juries may be next called upon
to decide upon the comparative merits OF
dozen different "Bitters." Let us look at
case which has recently been decided, and most
righteously determined, in the District Court
in Philadelphia.
Thaddeus Stevens, in 1864, while serving in
che army, received a wound in the thigh; am
putatiOn was performed above the knee, and
the patient was fitted upon the stump with an
artificial leg. After the operation an ancurism
formed below the joint of the thigh bone,
which was troublesome, and the operation for
1t was performed by DIR. Goss, assisted by
several eminent surgeons. The patient was
taken home, was constantly attended, day ana
night, by one surgeon or another, and was
nursed by students from the Medical School.
Secondary hcmOrrhage set ia which was
checked, but ultimately the patient died. This
action was brought by his widow for the re-
covery of damages, although it was in evil
dence that Prof. Goss was extremely unwilling
to perform the operation, and only did SO
after good deal Of Importantly on the part
of the deceased. After the case for the plaintiff
had been put in the facts appearing as snbstan-
TALLY stated above Lynd J. would not permit
the case to go to the jury, but directed non
suit. The defendants dr. GOss's son was in
eluded in the actiOn) were anxious to put in
their own evidence and to take verdict, but
the Court would not permit this, being clearly
of opinion that a case had not been made out.
A similar suit also comes under our notice,
occurring in New Hampshire. The action was
brought for alleged malpractice in setting a
| limb. At the first trial, the jury gave the
plaintiff $4,000 damages; upon review,
smaller damages were given, and the verdict
set aside upon exceptions; and the cause was
| then put on trial for the third time.
| Promising that of all quaoks in the world we
hold the medical quack in the greatest abhor-
renee, we must be permitted to say that this
malpractice" which is made the occasion of
80 many suits against the poor doctors Is as
uncertain and unsubstaDtial as possible. Sick
| folk will die in spite of the most judicious
treatment that end having been appointed for
| all men; and it is not, and cannot in the
nature of things be, part of the contract be-
tween the sick and the physician that the
death of the former shall render the latter
liable to pay damages. IL such were the law
| no sensible doctor would ever write another
prescription. He would know that a
considerable portion of his treatment must be
| in the nature Of an experiment; that with the
best intentions and knowledge carefully ac-
qured he may be misled in his diagnosis; that
in determining symptoms he may be misn-
formed that no can never DO sure, while
nurses ara neeligsnt and old wives 0llc0us.