The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1881-09-26
The Doctor as a Witness.
New York Times


MANY persons will like to be assured that the
physician or surgeon is forbidden by law to
disclose information acquired by him in pro-
fe sional attendance upon patient The new
Code of Procedure has not changed the sub
stance of prohibition Of this sort which has
been practiced in this State for half century.
Some practitioners need to be reminded OF it.
"A iudicious reticence is the general habit of all
worthy members Of the profession, but one
sometimes hears doctor rattling off particu-
liars of remarkable case and wonders to him
self, Would he narrate my case as freely if
were to consult him?
Are there any limits to this rule? None are
Expressed in the law. Are any imposed
by common sense? A decision Of the Court of
Appeals, presents this topic in a novel aspect
The story of the case is that Pierson was in
dicted for the murder of Whitney by poison.
While Whitney lay sick from the effects of the
drug which Pierson was suspected OF having
given, a physician was called to treat him. On
the trial of Pielson this physician was called as
a witness, and the District Attorney asked nim
to state what he saw and heard as TO his pa
tient's condition during the treatment. The
counsel for the accused objected, but the doc
tor was allowed to answer, and he described
the symptoms of poisoning by arsenic. The
Court of Appeals has pronounced the cause cor
rect. The statute must be understood in
sensible way and administered according to
the undoubted intention, which is to protect
the patient and physician in legitimate COM
munications, not to shield criminals The pur-
known his condition to his physician without
tbe danger of any disclosure by the latter
which would annoy the feeling. ipjure the
Hcbaracter or impair the standing OF the pa
Xtient while living. OF disgrace his memory when
LEAD Because the statute Us expressed in un-
malifed terms it does not follow that il must
oe administered absolutely. without limit. To
Invoke it ior the purpose of shielding one who
I is charged with murder. by suppressing the
most natural and trustworthy testimony as to
the injuries known to have been sustained by
the victim, would be a gross perversion.
This decision may well DO read In contraS
with one rendered nearly twenty years ago, in
which physician was forbidden 10 reveal the
iacts learned in professional treatment which
might lead to convict the patient of murder.
The two cases differ in this important fact,
that the professional visit in the Pierson case
vas made to the victim, whilo in the Stout
case now to be mentioned, it was made to the
suspected criminal. Early one winters morn
ing, the corpse Oh 1lbtl6S was lOuuu III inc
Genessee river just below the falls. Exam
tnation of the spot gave reason TO bel eve that
Iittles bad been murdered during the night
preceding in struggle OF some Violence TAX
ing place on the summit OF the hign oankj that
his body had been thrown over the bank, and
below had been dragged to the river; and that
|in the affair his assailants had fallen over the
bank in a way to receive serious injury. Dur
ling the forenoon of the same day Stout was
found in the neighborhood, wearing one arm
in sling and bearing severe scratches and
contusions on his face. These injuries OF
which he gave no satisfactory explanation, ex-
cited suspicion, the more so that the face OF
MS sister, who was the wife OF Littles, showed
similar bruises. He was taken to jail. Next
morning his hurts were seen to need treat
ment, and physicians were called TO see him.
Their purpose seems to have been partly TO
treat him as patient, partly to make
comparison of his condition with the
facts that were steadily coming to hight reia-
tive to his sisters injuries and win the clr-
cumstances of the mysterious murder tnen ex-
citing the neighDorhood. When, at length,
Stout was brought to trial for the murder OF
Littles, one of these physicians was allowed 10
state what he observed and had been IN
formed as to the prisoners condition on the
morning OF his professional visit. Stouts
counsel, OF course, objected, and the oolection
was sustained. Apparently, no great attention
was bestowed on the question whether the fact
shat suspicion of crime is involved warrants
making an exception to the statutory prohlDi-
|tion; the Judge said that he considered the
purpose Of the law to be to give to the relation
IF physician Tor surgeon) and patient the same
privilege as has from early time been ACCORDED
Co that of attorney and CLIENT and this, as ev-
cry one knows, extends to admissions OF guilt.