The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-04-12
PRIvILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.
The London Verdict for Damages In
terests Professional Men.
Medical and Surgical Journal.

Boston Medical and Surgical Journal.
Medical and social circles in London have
been good deal exercised very recently
over suit for SANDER brought by a lady
whom he had seen as patient in consulta-
ton, against DR.. Playfair, the well-known
obstetrician-a suit resulting in verdict
against the defendant with the extraordinar-
lily heavy damages of $4,000.
The amount of the damages does not con-
Germ us, but, so far as the question of pro-
to say most mphatically-granting always
that the report as rendered is accurate
that rhe jury must have found in favor of
the plaintiff.
That privileged communications should
be inviolable, except, perhaps, in criminal
cases involving questions of life and death
is, we believe, proposition which would
be upheld everywhere in this country by
the so-called learned professions" How
is this very important question actually
treated by the courts? First OF all. in re-
there is an utter and perncious absence or
uniformity in the various States OF the
Union. In the State of Massachusetts, for
instance, we are ashamed to say, the doc
tor is not protected by the court in his
refusal to reveal a professional secret-a
privileged communication" He may pre-
serve his professional honor untarnished
and go to Jail for it,: In New York on the
other hand. and in Michigan, for example,
the doctor is not only protected by the
secret, but is punished if he answers a
question involving such betrayal
The priest, certainly in Massachusetts,
finds himself in the same position as the
doctor" But the lawyer, for some fiction
best understood by the legal profession, is
in all our State, we believe, privileged per-
s0nage for privileged communications. The
oreticaily and practically, there undoubtedly
should be uniformity in practice in the courts
of the different States in regard TO this mat
ter, and there should be uniformity in the
treatment Of the three professions We have
cited.
We are not forgetful of the difficulties
which have been experienced in France, for
instance, in accurately defining what is and
what is not ''priveged;' in our own coun-
try however there is both this difficulty of
giefinition-whifh after all should not be in
superabe-and the absence of uniformity 10
be contended with. When will the legal pro-
fession not only permit. but encourage, a re-
FORM.
The verdict with which we began these
remarks as a text suggests the present alb
normal and unenvlable position Of the med
icai adviser. at least in Massachusetts. II
he privately makes use of knowledge ac-
qured in a professional capacity to guard
the honor or protect the interests of MEM
bers of his own family he is liable 10 Sc
we're punishment, and yet the same knowl-
edge which should be secret, and should
be privileged, is, in public trial at law, at
the mercy of opposing counsel and the court.
Is this as 1t should be? Do not the best
interests Of the public, Of the medical pro-
fession, of the clergy demand some change
i'm the direction Of consistency, of greater
national and professional uniformity in the
provisions of the law?