The Evening critic., 1881-07-26
THE EVENING CRITIC.

TABLIsHED AUGUST, 1895

In reading number of yesterdays cdi-
ton of your able and interesting paper, 1
notice that over column is occupied by
what Is entitled ga Violation of Medical
Ethics" and purports to be an extract from
the advanced sheets of the Retrospect of
American Medicine and Surgery referring
to the difficulty between DIR. Bliss, who has
charge of the Presidents case, and DR.. Bax-
ter, who cndcavorcd to obtain charge of it.
In reading this article, written by doc.
tor, one is especially struck with the fact
that from his medical standpoint the wishes
of the patient as to who is to attend him
seems to be subject entirely subordinate
to the DEGREES of the Medical Association.
To one not doctor the first question which
would suggest itself is, who does the sick
wish but not so to the medicated intel
lect. To it the inquiry arises, whom does
the Medical Association direct that the
patient shall have And forthwith, nolens
volens, that doctor takes control of the pa
tient, whose wishes are not to be regarded
for an instant. In fact, the whole proceed
ing is similar to u story told by Lever of n
traveller who, landing in Ireland, was seized
upon by car-driver rs his property. and
on demonstrating was told, "an' shure don't
We bclang to me- didn't me and the other
boys throw dice for yc, and I won yc.
= 1t is to such an
Unreasonable and UntenabIe Posi-.
q that the writer of the article in question is
forced by ignoring the fact that the Presi-
dent has been perfectly conscious from the
time he was shot, and had he desired the
attendance of Dr. Baxter could, of course,
have had it ut any time by simply request
ing it, which he has not done.
1t is evident that the writer of the article
obtained his facts from DIR. Baxter Indeed,
he plainly tells us that he gives DIR. Bax
ter's statement of what passed at the inter-
view between himself and DR.. Bliss, and
also prints in full private letter written
to DIR. Baxter which was. of course, fur
nished by the person to whom it was adj
dressed. Wenre justified, therefore, in re-
garding thisarticle as DIR. Baxter's prcsenta-
ton of his version of the difficulty, and,
accepting it as such, it is evident that DIR.
Baxter has made an exceedingly poor case
for himself
=, In referring TO the sections of the code of
ethics of the American Medical Association,
given in the article, VIC sec they read:
"Sec. 3. When q physician is called to
an urgent case, because the family attendant
is not at hand, he ought, unless his assist
ance in consultation BE desired, to resign
q the care of the patient to the latter imme-
diately on his arrival"
Pausing to consider this section we see
that it is, when the physician is called,
Because the Family Attendant II Not
ut Hand
that he is to resign on the arrival of the
family physician. Now this necessarily in
wolves the idea that some attempt has been
made or will be made by the sick man or
his family to obtain the services of the
family physician, if he has one. No gentle
man in the medical profession, unless he
were sent for, would proceed to call on and
tender his services to a person who was
taken sick or injured, for the sole reason
that upon some past occasion, or generally
in the past, that person had sent for him as
a medical advisor. A gentleman certainly,
in any profession, would not thrust himself
forward unless he received some intimation
that his services were desired; and Dr. Bax-
Der, from his own statement, has received
no such intimation.
The next section of the American Medical
Association, however, very wisely and prop
erly provides that the matter of selection
shall be left to the patient Itslanguagc is :
SEC. 8. 1t often happens in cases of sud
den illness or of recent accidents and in
iures, owing to the alarm and anxiety of
friends, that number of physicians are
simultaneously sent for. Under these cir
cumstances courtesy should assign the pa
tient to the first who arrives, who should
select from those present any additional as
sistance he may deem necessary. In all such
cases. however, the practitioner who of
ficates should request the family physician
if there be one, to be called, and, unless his
further attendance be requested, should re-
sign the case to the latter on his arrival"
1t is apparent from this section that the
Medical Association intended that an OPP
portunity should be given to the patient to
call in his family physician, if he had one,
or, on the contrary, if he preferred to retain
the attending physician to allow him to so
state.
have too high an opinion of the
wisdom of the Gentlemen OF the
Medical Association
to imagine for an instant that they intend
cd, what the writer in the " Retrospect
: endeavors to show; that is, that the patient
must yield his preferences and wishes and
be compelled to send for whatever doctor
he had been in the habit of considering his
family physician. Such an Interpretation is
not only absurd, but would be laying down
a tyrannical rule to which the public in
this country would not submit
The intention of the rule is plain. 1t is to
h enable the patient without hesitation to
4 send for or call in his family physician.
? Now comes the pertinent question:; Was
1 DIR. Baxter sent for by the President? Not
j at all. According to his statement he does
y not claim that he received any summons or
that he waited to receive one. He was, he
: saws, out of town when he heard that the
!. President had been shot, and, returning on
I the first express train, hurried to the White
Y House without pausing to inquire whether
his presence there had been requested. Now,
, if he had paused long enough to read the
sections Ave and six of the code of ethics,
= under which he thinks he can claim he has
I been ill-treatcd, he would have seen that
= all those sections require is that the physi-
y clan who has been summoned hastily or ac-
, cidentally shall request the patient or his
family
\. To Send for the Family Physician,
If there be one, and if the family physician
is sent for, then as the patient has thus
shown his preference, the first summoned
K doctor is to retire on the arrival of the
family physician. Now there is nothing in
NJ DIR. Baxters statement to show that Dr.
Bliss has in any way violated the ethics
DIR. Baxter claims to have been in the past
the family physician, but ON this oc-
.cason, as neither the President nor
his family had sent for him, OF
expressed any desire for his presence or at
tendance, he had no right to expect or de-
mand that DIR. Bliss should retire on his
uncalled for arrival at the White House.
and when he informed Dr. Bliss that he was
the family physician, and proposed to see
the President as such, he was