Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1893-03-09
Medical Etiquette Illustrated.

bOSlOu AuNtTIlSer.
Within the present week in this city
occurred an incident that is typical of
the extreme to which professional eti-
quette may be carried. a patient lay
i'll of raging fever, whose progress, ap-
parently, had not been prevented or nit
igated by the remedies prescribed by
the doctor "in charge" of the case. That
doctor was not entirely satisfactory to
the latter, but had been called in merely
because he happened to be near at hand
The sick man protested strongly against
the continuance of the seemingly use
less treatment and insisted that the
family physician should be called. In
a spirit of courtesy the attending physi-
clan was told of the facts and of the
wish of the patient. The family doctor
was summoned and was met by the at
tending physician. The two doctors
had private consultation and as re
suit the attending physician announced
that he would remain in charge" de-
spite the objections of the patient and
the family, despite the knowledge that
his every visit so irritated and exasper-
ated the patient as to increase the fever
of the helpless but thoroughly indignant
victim. The family then made an al
most piteous appeal to the family physi-
clan to visit the patient, whose cOndi-
ton was such as to occasion grave alarm
and the most depressing fears; but the
reply was made that no reputable phys
ician in Massachusetts would so imper-
il his standing under the rules which
govern physicians as to attend patient
so long as the attending physician" re-
fused his consent.
The facts in the case are indisputable,
and are given from personal knowledge.
The consideration that under the cir
cumstances the very life of the patient
might be endangered made no impress
ly to ''etiquette" of their profession. If
the medical practitioners stated the rule
correctly, one doctor in this common
wealth may have the conceded right to
prohibit the attendance of another doc
tor on patient, no matter what the
wishes or state of the sick man may be,
and as result of an exaggerated defer
ence to this "etiquette," it is possible to
suppose that a patient, constantly irri-
tated and excited under condition that
demands rest and quiet, may die, but
but the senSeless "etiquette" will have
been observed.
1t may be true that the case cited 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 the way
under such circumstances. Yet it still
remains to be said that if any custom OF
rule exists to justify such proceeding
as was SO rigidly observed in the in
stance noted, that rule or custom ought
to be abolished. Many eminent men,
bers of the medical profession have been
arguing in favor of law to prohibit
"quacks" from practising in this State.
Arguments of cOgent nature have been
brought forward to support the PROPOSE
ton. Yet it remains to be said in that
connection that if the commonwealth
were to allow ''regnlar" practitioners to
pursue business, and if any rule existed
to deprive family of the right to en-
ploy whatever practitioner it pleased,
whenever it pleased, the change would
not be entirely for the better. Indeed,
if any such rule or practice now exists
among physicians of the existing schools,
it is to be feared that the members of
that profession have already more power
than they should have. Such an arrange
ment merely represents huge "trnst"
or pool and is in the nature of an i'm
position on the public. In the case cited
both doctors seem equally to blame; one
for imperilling the health of the patient
to serve personal ends, and the other for
allowing mere rule, custom or under
standing to stand in the way of duty to
the sick.