The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1896-04-19
PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT.
ALL ENGLAND DISCUSSING IHEIR
RIGH AND DUTIES.
FEATURES or the Kitsou.P inyfnir Cause
Celebre-The Gar Secures n Newly Dis
covered Sixth Century Copy OF the
- OF Oddities FROM Life.

~ Nhs NNNVA " AaNN 49,
Csiebre-The Cznr Secures n Newly Dl"-
covered sixth Century Copy OF the
e~ospei-Chapter OF Oddities from Life
IONpoN, April A.-Thc now famous Kitson
aqt, playfair case Ia at present the chief SUB
ject Of popular discussion throughout the land.
Its q discussion which IL already waxing bitter,
and II the medical profession be not careful
and discreet II will lead to n rcopening OF the
breach which undoubtedly existed until re-
cant years bet Seen II large class of tho English
public and the average medical man. This
prejudice. for such It was, may be described MS
. com bination of vague fear and lack of CON
ndence. Even now there are thousands OF
EnRlishmen abundantly able TO employ a ply
stefan who would not do 40 except IN the great
est extremity, some not even then.
Last weeks trial is already leading TO n gem
eral public debate of the duties and relations
Of physician and patient. Tho sweeping pub
lilo verdict In the Kitson-Playfair case has been
In effect that a phi ysicinn has no right to dis
close q professional secret to any one except in
the rare. IL not impossible, circumstance of its
being, necessary In order to prevent the COM
mission of a crime. Within n day or two 1t be-
Gins 10 appear that this verdict is not quite
unanimous among layinen. Mr.. Gladstone Is
the one important exception quoted. lie Is n
warm personal friend of DR.. Playfair, and he
writes to him that c.considors that he did
''neither more nor less than his duty But
Mr.. Gladstone Will have few supporters In an
opinion which everybody Will feel Is Influenced
by personal friendship.
One Of the most interesting points which
the public is considering is whether n doctor
Is justified in confding his professional secrets
TO his wife. This question Is certainly dobat-
able, and there Is some divergence OF opinion
manifested both within and without the pro-
fession. Justice Hawkins, who presided at last
weeks trial, raised the point, but no did not
rule upon II, as 1t was not involved in the Issue.
He described It, however. as "a nice question:
The English.law has decided that the com
munication of a Islander or II libel by a man TO
his wife is not publication, the theory being
that q man and his wife are one. This is an
old decision, however. and whether It would
stand In these days OF new women II is impos-
sible to cay.
1t was argued by several Of the most eminent
physicians in England who appeared In sup
port of DR.. Plavfair lust week that a doctor
has the right to betray professional confidence
II necessary for the purpose of protecting his
wife and family. Therefore. whatever may
be said about DR.. Playfair's action in making
Q communication to Sir James Kitson about
bis patient. he had a perfect right TO inform
his wife that in his opinion Mrs. Kitson was
not q suitable person for her to meet socially.
The obvious answer in reply to this is that.a
doctors family Is not entitled to any special
facilities for their social protection which a
layman's family does not enjoy.
Several writer's have drawn parallels between
tho duty of a doctor and that of a member of
tho legal profession. Suppose, for instance,
as may easily happen. that a personal friend of
Q lawyer consults him about a matter in which
his (the clients, course.has not been
able or honorable. The lawyer may give his
best professional advice, and the affair may
be settled without publicity. Is the lawyer
entitled to tell the story TO hi, wife and fam
lily in order that they may cease to associate
with the individual concerned2 Certainly not
Is the unanimous reply. But the lawyer. II he
chooses. may make this: use of his professional
knowledge: He can say to his client:
'Now that this business is settled. I want to
toll you that our intercourse hereafter must
be- purely professional. I shall respect YOUR
confidence. but l wish you to discontinue social
relations with my family. If you are invited
to my house. 1 expect you to decline the invi-
tatton." And why are not q doctors duty and
privilege precisely the same2
In Mrs. Kitson's case, II should be observed.
she of her own v~olition wrote to DR.. Playfair
that she would not cross his Threshold until
he had withdrawn his suspicious of her charac-
ter. And yet he considered it his duty to in
form his wife. to say nothing Of Sir James Kit
son. of those suspicious.
The question of a physician's' riRht--and duty
to violate professional confidence Is being
raised in other cases, actual and hypothetical.
Thus a doctor writes to tho Times yesterday
saying he has n patient, a milkman who Is
suffering from a loathsome and contagious dis
ease, accompanied by an eruption on the hands
and arms. There is great danger OF this dis
ease being communicated to his customers.
According to the decision in the Kitson case.
however. he believes he would DO liable to
grave penalties II he informed either the mans
employer or customers Of the danger. A doc
tor who is doubtful about his duty or who
hesitates to perform IL in such a case is of
course not only a fool but a knave. His first
step. of course. is to insist that his patient
shall drop his present employment until cured.
II the patient fails to act according to this ad-
vice, then no is wilfully and knowingly i'm
pefilling the health and lives Of many people.
an action which is a crime under the common
law; and nobody questions q doctors right and
duty TO prevent serious crime ut any cost.
Raising this issue, therefore, Is an absurd beg
gtng of the question.
The size OF tho verdict in the Kitson- Playfair
case Is much commented upon. Sixty thou.
sand dollars is certainly the record figure in n
Islander or libel action in this country. The
defendants own testimony was undoubtedly
the chief cause OF so heavy an assessment OF
damages. DIR. Playfair is u very distinguished
and q very able man.. but he possesses in a
marked degree that peculiarly irritating char.
acteristic of many OF his ntrymen-dog-
matte and unreasoning assumption OF superb
orisy and self-righteousness which amounts to
infallibility. The shrewd questions of the cross
examining lawyer brought ont this quality in
full force, with the result that 1t aroused the
resentment Of the jury and additional SYM
pathy with the plaintiff. The measure OF the
verdict against him is II declaration that it is
only the man whose judgment is really infalli-
BILE who can afford to refuse TO temper his JUS
tioe with mercy.
It Is doubtful II the courts can DO induced to
sat aside the verdict. In a case carried TO tho
Court OF Appeal several years ago. where dam.
ages to character amounting to 500. 900 had
been awarded, tho decision was that ''thc court
VIII not interpose on account OF the lnrgeness
OF damages unless they are 70 ilagrantly Excess
aiva ma IN afford "a m Intarpal avI1nn,a - ,bo