Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1877-02-07

Messrs Editors The article ON Medical ex-
pert testimony" in the case of Gilman rs Town
of STAFFORD, printed in your edition of January
oath, requires from some one brief reply,
in order that those who read may better under
stand the nature Of such cases, aud the difficulties
encountered in their just determination.
First of ALL it should be remembered that in
every instance where expert testimony is essen
italy conflicting, the nature of the case is obscure
complicated and does not admit of scientific de-
monstration at the time but az best affords only
the basis for a reasonable professional opinion,
which the expert is considered the most Compel
ent to give bat only at the risk of finally showing
his error and incapacity. The plain cases a not
litgated experts are not called to them in court
but TO the doubtful obscure and difficult cases,
where personal injury is claimed to have been re-
ceved Cannot the expert better determine
whether bodily injury claimed is real or as
sumed; whether a sndden death occurred from
poison or disease; whether paralysis has occurred
from lead, disease of the brain, or injury of the
spinal cord, etc, etc, than persons who make lit
tie or no study OF such cases? And yet, no OPP
portunty is lost to show up, and exaggerate the
conflict of medical opinions, and " the uselessness
of medical expert testimony"s
Now in questions not admitting Of demonstra-
ton, but requiring adjustment what better can
we do, In our imperfect state of being than to act
from the best knowledge and authority obtaina-
BILE; may we not hope thus to most nearly attain
to truth and justice2 Hence, in questionable cases
Of injury, where respectable experts of good abi-
ity maintain with equal merit opposite positions,
let the jury offset one against the other, with the
verdict, mot proren;' and let the public feel
that the best measures which the age permits to
Justly settle difficult question have been used,
instead Of venting its excitement in decrying
profession who, class, devote themselves
more assiduousy at greater peril, and with
less hope of pecuniary reward, than any other
amongus
Differences OF opinion are not peculiar to med-
cal men Law, politics, and divinity have their
sharp conflicts, but we do not hence infer their
advocates to he sef-seeking, ignorant and dis
honest, but rather that they have convictions of
right, truth ami duty
But you inquire, cannot an intelligent phys
elan determine whether person has suffered in
jury from which he has lost forever all power of
motion and all sense of feeling in both limbs and
the right arm, or whether they are shdmning
totally OF in part o. This is strong statement,
ana thlnk on leNltN Mpulu prove 10 nave Deen
oyerdnwn But / can understand how honest
and intelligent experts might hold different opin-
ions upon 1t.
First would remark that it is utterly beyond
the skill or power OF any physician 10 affirm the
fact that paralytic in any ordinary case has lost
forever all power of motion and feeling in the
pamlyzed parts, for the reason that they often
Unexpectedly recover
Second-There are cases of paralysis which for
a time at least evinoe only subjective symptoms;
that is, the patient says he cannot move, cannot
feel etc. while yet the parts have their usual
appearance, normal temperature and size. The
esthesiometer for detecting paralysis is useless
here for the condition claimed is a negative one,
and of course the party feels nothing The cleo
tric test and reflex motion may be also negative
and how is the surgeon ON u short acquaintance
going 10 determine whether paralysis does or
does not actually exist? But you stick pins and
needles into the limbs without cringe on the
part of the patient Yes, the sensitiyeness of
different persons in the normal state is So vari-
Gus that we have seen pins thrust into healthy
limbs for mere sport.
but again you say the plaintiffs limbs are
already wasting; he is evidently para, zed Yes,
but may it not be result OF the first injury the
disease is sometimes very slow and irregular of
access, liable To reapses; in truth, possibly the
overtun in the mill-yard was not the cause, but
the Occasion Of the suit Did facts or crcum-
stances in the case favor this theory, could you
blame citizen expert, called by the defendant,
for maniiesting the zeal OF partisan; would his
testimony he less available TO promote the ends
of justice because his heart WAS In II ? In short,
it is difficult for sincere expert to appear other
wise than as partisan under the assaults Of
shrewd word-fencing attorney =.
Montpelier, February 9th, 1871