The Douglas independent. [volume] (Roseburg, Or.) 187?-1885, 1879-11-01

MALPRACTICE.

We have been informed that doctor
Stryker fluids fault with this newapa-
per in the matter of its report OF the
testimony taken in his trial for man
slaughter. It is true we did not pub
lish all the evidence in the case but
it Is also as true we gave TO the public
all that was furnished by our special
reporter before that gentleman was
called before the Court as witness.
No one could have done more in sim
pie, impartial Justice without that one
had attained the skill and education
of Esculapias in surgery and furthered
the ends of right by sitting as chief
prosecutor IN a case where there was
malpractice shown, and in which all
that was necessary to insure convic-
tion in the premises-not only honest
viii, earnest thought and correct
knowledge of human nature bought
by careful study of law-but knowl-
edge of surgery complete to detect a.
fault and convict quack.
But 1t matters not If doctor Stryker
does grumble under the circumstances.
Though i'm measure condensed, the
testimony reported was as uttered by
the witnesses for the prosecution
What Is worse for doctor Stryker, If
we take the statements of jurors who
tried his case as evidenee-men who
declared the doctor guilty of the crime
OF man-slaughter-the members of the
jury did not acquit him of the crime
charged because in their opinion they
did not believe him guiltless, but be-
cause the law and fault in testimo-
ny which might have been corrected,
prevented them from declaring they
believed doctor Stryker was the cause
of the death Of poor Mary E. Hart,
and her death resulted from gross ig-
noranee,of her condition ON the part
of her medical attendant.
We will admit that we have preju-
dice against quaeks, and medical
packs in particular, The doctor may
AK the matter Of prejudice on our
mart ffor what it is worth Itremains
aIathe same that Stryker bid for the
treatnSs9t Of the case by representing
to Hart, without sscslicitation on the
latter's part, that he twas ff2ss.ng good
time" and that he (Stryker) coIiG.
snd would cure Hart's wife. There
was no evidence offered in Court by
the defense to prove that Stryker was
agraduated physician learned in the
practice of medicine. The defendant
did not attempt TO prove that by long
study and close attention upon medi-
cal lectures he had acquired the right
TO prescribe in a case of life and death.
Though acquitted the fact remains he
bid for the practice he secured when
clearly he was not competent to per-
form it, and risked killing the woman
whether intentionally or not matters
but little) for the sum he charged for
attending upon her. At least this is
the logical conclusion.
To admit this conclusion is to ad-
NIT of grevious fault in our laws
relating to the practice of medicine.
And we repeat the truths established
during the trial to show how little our
people are protected from quacks-not
in enmity toward any living man.
The evidence and failure of conviction
in. this case shows that there is no
protection and we regret we have
not Judge .Watson's charge to the
jury to use here in proof, that our
laws, ike those in Massachusetts,,
provide that 1t must be shown that Il
Is the intention Of The doctor to XIII, OF that
ne allows the patient to die through
gross negligence, before be can be con-
victed Of malpractice in the degree of
manslaughter. Ignorance In the case
amounts to nothing. Tt is offset by q
display of zeal on the part of the re-
puted doctor In attendance on behalf
of the patient. No diploma as a
graduate, or proof Of education as a
doctor is required. If the fact is es-
tablished that DIR. Kill-all-and- Cure
None is recognized by the community
in which he lives as practicing ply
sician he may go on forever, doctor
the we'll and make the well sick and
kill them after they become sick, and if
he performs the last act in the tragedy
with soand or cdtheter or chtsster
spliced with ramrod, it matters not
in the sight of the law If he remains
by the patient, expresses concern for
her welfare and regularly provides
physic for her.
1.-THE law does not protect us, then
the question is naturally asked, where
is the remedy. In the same Massa-
ehusetts decision mentioned we find q
suggestion for remedy, which we
here quote. AT the conclusion of the
decision the opinion reads rs Mass.
Rep, p. i4I.1
q Il is to be exceedingly lamented that
people are so easily persuaded to put con-
fideuce in these itinerant quacks. and to
trust their lives to strangers without
kHoweledge or experience. If this aston-
isbing infatustion should continue. end
men are found to yield TO the iInpudent re-
tensions Of ignorant empiricism, there
seems to be no adequate remedy by a
criminal prosecution, iett01tf tie isstegJerence
of TIC LegtsE1ture, If the quacz, however
weak and presunptuous, should prescribe
with honest intentions and expectations oil
relieving his patients
It is true, Is in the Stryker case, the
defendant was declared guiltless but
IL fa aIzr trt,a In the ThounsOn case.