New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-03-24
PHYSICIANS And TIE NEWSPAPERS.
DOCTORS DISCUSS THE QUESTION OF GIVING
THEIR OPINIONS FOR PUBLICATION.

DOCTORS DISCUSS THE QUESTION OF GIVING
THEIR OPINIONS FOR PUBLICATION.
The Medical Society of the County Of New-York de-
voted its stated meeting last evening at NO. Il West
Fortv.third-st. to discussing the attitude that medical
men ought to take toward the daily newspapers Tie
ouestion as put being, "Under what circumstances ana
to what extent may members Of the medical profession
properly permit their names and opinions 10 be pup
Ishod ny the secular prcSs1r DR.. Orlando i. Doug
La. who presided, introduced as the first speaker
Dr. r. +. SturgiS. He began By quoting the codes OF
the American Medical Association ana OF the state
Medical Association, the latter of which has a clause
prohibiting physicians from publishing or suffering 10
be published through reporters or intervicwerS Oh ue
daily press their opinions or the reports OF cases or
oncrations. DR.. SturCis did not view this sweeping
n~rohlhition with favor. There frequently arise IN
stances. he said, when upon some medlcal question
OF public interest the newspapers desire te views u
member, Of the medical profession. IL a newspaper
wants a particular item Of medical news IL VIII s'
il by hook or by crook. He Thought Il phS ~"
ought 10 give his opinion, il asked, or better "rte 10
out at length, that the newspapers may get II cor
rectly. In referring to the recent experiences WIN
the Koch lvnph as a cure for consumption. he san IL
did seem that the medical profession was hot ohs
qualified but justified In putting the pubic on their
guard against false hopes and false Deductions III
matters relating to the public health or neglect Oh
sanitary precautions, the newspapers printed inc
| names Of those physicians who speak in public meet
incS, and it was eminently proper that they shouid
speak In such meetings. Yet the section OF the code
| referred to would prohibit IL. There were three cases
when he thought that medical men should permit thelr
| names and opinions to be published in the newspapers
| first, when sought for In regard to matters pertaining
10 the public health; second, when their advice or
opinion is sought for in regard to new or unusua!
| methods Of treatment: and. third, where 1t was nee
cssarv 10 correct mistaken impressions concerning
| operative procedures or surgical methods Of treatment.
DR.. jacob was the first member called upon to
| discuss the paper. lie did not think the question 20
simple as DR.. sturgis had found ii. lie spoke Of the
interview or the letter and the newspaper as "dodges'
10 ret INFO the papers in a general dis Encouragement Of
attempts by medical men 10 advertise. In regard ID
the genuine interview, he said that most OF the ques'
tons asked could not be answered, and 10 say sonle-
thing useful In the short time at the disposal OF the
| interviewer was generally impossible. 10 write popu'
larry on scientific subjects IS a difficult thing. As q
way of meeting the demands Of the newspapers for
medical Information, DR.. jacob suggested that they
should maintain upon their stats medical men win
nothing TO do but TO report on medical subjects n
language simple and Ineligible to the people. The
suggestion met with applause. Dr. jacob expressed
disapproyal. especially OF interviews reporting notable
operations, which he thought generally SUBJECTED te
physician whose name appeared to uhiaVora0ie co"'
Or. Daniel Lewis thought the whole question wa;
overrated in Importance. and was largely a matter ~
taste. No one doubted that 1t was tile Physicians
business 10 instruct the community, so far as needed,
but there was danger Of doing mischief to tie pubic
He. too, in>tanccd the recent excitement over tub'F-
culOslS, saying that In all Ids experience there wa,
nothing more distressing than the hi!l hopes lalsn
thc sick by the accounts published by the newspapers.
The only remedy for such evils, lie thouEit was n
medical editor 10 select such things for publication as
the public should know.
DR.. 4. 6. Hunter thought that doctors ought 10 pup
lsh their opinions only in the medical journals, a, N
reviewers could not be informed on medical subjects,
and of;en made tie physician ridiculous ,by the terms
u,,d. only on such rare occasions. as the occurrence
If cuidemicS should the physician be Wiling 10 gVe
his opinions and advice. The better way would De al,
WAYS 10 refer such matters 10 a staining committee 10
answer for The papers. ho,
DR.. George I. Shrady, who followed, SAID ne hn
boon s,rurisrd at the knowledge and intelligence win
which reporters had discussed such matter, as tMs
recent tuberculosis excitement. lie Lad never see.
any particular misrepresentation IN the daily papers
on medical subjects. The whole question rested upon
| one point. whether the physician spoke for MS own
advantage or for the profession. ,
The Rev. DR.. Buckley, Of The Christian AnVocanci
and Or. d. i. II. John Rosa followed. Dr: ''u'o'
summed up the discussion. \ supper followed