New-York tribune., 1877-11-22
LETTERS FRON THE PEOPLE.
REVEALING PROFESSIONAL SECRETS.
THE HIPPOCRATIC OAIH-THE LAWS OF NEW-fo"A
AND THE VANDERBILT WILL CASE.

REVEALING PROFESSIONAL sECkEI0'
THE HIPPoCRATc oAIH-THE LAWS OF NEw-fORK
ASD THE VANDERBILT WILL CASE.
To the Edit0r Of The Tribune.
SIR: In discussing "The Sanctities or Phi
vate Ifsp in this mornings ssue you make some strc-
ts upon the professional conduct of one Of the med
cal witnesses in the Vanderbilt viii and you infer
that he has been guilty Of breaking not only
the statute bearing upon the testm ny OF such
Witnesses bat also the Hippocratic OATH These are
very serious charges. and invite, on Dehat OF
the medical profession, Of which the gentleman Is
an honored member, correction. Permit me-
them 10 encroach sufficiently upon your space
10 put the matter I'm somewhat different
light from the one IN which you have viewed
IT, but one that know must commend
itself TO you ~ a champion Of law and justice. The
statute which you quote ('ection 13 states that no
person duly authorized to practise physc or surgery
shall be allowed 10 disclose any information which Le
NAV have acquired i'm attending any patient in profess
sional character aud which information was necessary
90 enable him 10 prescribe FOR such patient as physl-
cian. or 10 do any act FOR him as a surgeon"
The Code OF Civll Procedure which, according to MI
Montgomery IT. Turoop contains the laws now IN force
on tne subject makes about the same provisions Tor
medical testimony. But if we wish 20 know what has
been the practical operation Of the statute To when
YOU refer, We have but to tuIn 10 the surro-
yates Reports wnere find that IN tne ease OF Jonu
HarrisOn's VIII tAilen and Public Administrators l.
Bradford, 5urrogae's RcpOr-s --l, 10 was ne, IN l7Jo'
that the provision Of the Revised statutes that ply
sicau shall not be allowed 20 disclose any Information
which be may have acquired in attending any patient
is not applicable to the physician Of deceased
person IN q te,iamcutiry concerning the probate
OF the II Of such decedeut" 81" and the Surrogate 10 Je-
yering the opinion, stated, do no IN the hgst place.
think that testamenary are within the reason or
the intention Of the statute in question the opinion OF
a very eminent jurist.
But as 10 tue IDpocratc oath. The clause % Wnlch
YOU doubtlcss refer reads Whatever in connection
with my professional prIc' Ice, not 10 connection with
IT, ss. or hear IN the lie Of men, which oug not 10 De
spoken Of abroad will not dyulge, as reckoning hai
all such should be kept secret" In the particular IN
a. hand the criticism seems 10 pe tec''' 10.
ward public statements made IN court or justice b'.
what Is the rule OF conscience that can pima puyS
to withhold from part Ol family ORDINARY L,.t'
which lave come INFO his possession during his pro.es
sIona Attendance upon E'llef lhuee =, jI''i,e %
equally at the disposal OF both parties TO tnt Hl-
gallon, so loug at least ~ ,rs name Vi -, 80 tt %
pears 10 have been held in the courtroom ~ thiS case
presume II il not necessary 20 sta y "a q 10 ts,
cal testimony mas no Ilslaice ue iiicg nc - ~ - ~
or tarusAed tle character Oi his family The other med
reason ,or So dong was that their Information was
confidential. hut tnaJ il aid nos tI rcty on- 10 a M
Tne Court however, decided that such information dd
noe belong exclusively 20 tie party or parties oI WIom
Witnesses 20 testify Probably the Court acted wisely IN
s0 doing, holding with Surrogate Brai Ord tat % u.
fe privilege tl silence the wInessl. .ndt viii moi b.
done amy urlner rnan consistent Win justice ana good
/ morals" MI
Acr- Yort. Nov. y. 1877
here is 10 question at all Of the high character
ana entire good faith Of Or. Linsly in this matter
This the article in question explicitly recog-
nized. But we are clearly Of the opinion
that no physician Is warranted, either by
what have heretofore been regarded as The
requirements of his profession, or by the general
iudoment of the community. IN giving such testi-
mouv without first exLaustiug his powers to protect
his client lie should at least, enter his objections
10 IT.. and place the responsibility for oyerruhng
them upon the COurt.-EdI