St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-04-03
Il ETIQUETTE.

A Striking Instance of the EX-
treme to Which 1t Is Sometimes
Carried by the Medical Profess
sion.
Boston Advertiser.
Within the present week in this city
occurred an incident that is typical of
the extreme to which professional ETH
ouette may be carried. A patient lay
i'll OF a raging fever, whose progress,
apparently, had not been prevented or
mitigated by the remedies prescribed by
the doctor in charge of the case. mat
doctor was not entirely satisfactory to
the patient, and was even dlStaSteful 10
the latter, but had been called in merely
because he happened to be near al
hand. The sick man protested strongly
against the continuance of he SEEM
Ingly useless treatment, and insisted
that the family physician should be
called.
In a spirit of courtesy the attending
physician was told of the facts ana OF
the wish of the patient. The family
doctor was summoned and was met oy
the attending physician. Inc TWO doc-
tors had a private consultation. ana as
a result the attending physician an
nounced that he would "remaln IN
charge" despite the objections OF the
patient and the family, despite the
knowledge that his every visit so irri-
tated and exasperated the patient as to
increase the fever of the helpless. DuC
thoroughly indignant victim.
The family then made an almost pit
eous appeal to the family physician to
visit the patient, whose condition was
such as to occasion grave alarm ana
the most depressing fears; ont the re-
ply was made that no reputable pnySl-
clan in Massachusetts would SO lmperil
his standing under the rules Whlcn
govern physicians as to attend a patlenC
so long as the attending physician
refused to consent.
The facts in the ease are lndlSputa-
bic, and are given from personal knoWl-
edge. The consideration that under the
circumstances the very life OF the pa
tient might be endangered made no ltl-
preston upon the two doctors, VINO
looked only to the etiquette" OF thelr
profession. If the medical practlttonerS
stated the rule correctly, II doctor III
this commonwealth may V the con-
coded right to prohibit the
Of another doctor on a patient, no mat
Itl WIldl IllG WlSllCS VI olobO ~
man may be, and, as a result OF an eX.
aggerated Difference to this ''etiquetLe,"
it is possible to suppose that a patent,
constantly irritated and excited under
a condition that demands rest II quiet.
may die, but the senselesS etlquetIe
must have been observed.
1t may be true that the case clted is
an unusual one, and it can readily be
conceded that there are many humane
doctors who would not allow an empty
form of etiquette to stand in their way
under such circumstances. Yet IL sui
remains TO be said that if any custom or
rule exists to Justify such a proceeding
as was so rigidly observed in the IN
stance noted, that rule or custom ought
to be abolished. Many eminent mem
beers of the medical profession have oeen
arguing in favor of a law to prohibit
~''quackS" from practlcing III THIS staIe.
Arguments of Il cOgent nature nave
been brought forward to support THIS
proposition.
Yet it remains to be said in that con-
nection that il the commonwealth were
to allow regular" practitioners TO pur-
sue business, and II any rule existed 10
deprive atamily of the right 10 employ
whatever practitioner it pleased, when
ever it pleased, the change would not
be entirely for the better. Indeed, II
| any such rule or practice now exist
among physicians of the existing schools,
it is to be feared that the members OF
that profession have already more pow
er than they should have.
Such an arrangement merely rep
resentS a huge trust or pool, ana Is III
the nature of an imposition on the pub
lie, In the case cited both doctors Seell
co ually to blame-one for lmperieing
the health of the patient to serve per
sonal ends, and the other for allowing {
mere rule, custom or understanding u
stand in the way of duty to the sick.