The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1897-03-13
ARE DOCTORS
ALL FELONS I?
Startling Question Asked of So
ciety Medical Jurisprudence.
Stephen G. Baldwin Says That
They Are.
BUT TECHNICAL GUILT
Only Is Meant by His COnten.
tiOn in Law.
Doctors Carlessness With Pa
tients Responsible for Death.

New York, March 13.-At a meeting
of the Society of Medical Jurisprudence
last night a startling paper was read
by Stephen c. Baldwin, a youthful
member of the bar. His subject was,
Are the Doctors All Criminals?"
Mr. Baldwin said he would have to
answer in the affirmative.
Il doubt" he said, whether there is
in sound of my voice, a physician that
has not committed manslaughter in the
second degree as that crime is defined
in the penal code"
The doctors present pricked up their
ears.
Baldwin went on, defines manSlaught-
er in the second degree as causing, by
any act, procurement or culpab bic neg
ligence, the death of any person. These
words are very plain. If you attend
patient, and by any act of yours that
patient dies you are liable to lnd1ct-
ment under the statute. No element
of generalization, design or intended
criminality is necessary
In substantiatiOn of this statement
Mr.. Baldwin cited several hypothetical
cases. One was upon the presumption
that a doctor prescribed a remedy for
one symptom of complaint and found
next day that his treatment had caus-
ed the patient to reich so violently that
death resulted soon afterwards. An
other case was upon the hypothesis that
the attending physician found the sick
room poorly ventilated and ordered one
of the windows opened, the result of
which was that the patient contracted
pneumonia and died. In each of these
instances, he declared, the doctor was
liable under the statute to Indictment
for manslaughter in the second de-
gree.
The chances that the surgeon runs
of becoming a criminal in the eyes of
the law" said Mr.. Baldwin, ARE still
greater" After advancing this state
ment, he cited a case wherein he had
appeared as counsel for doctor who
had been indicted for causing the death
of young woman upon whom he had
performed a delicate operation 1t was
shown at the trial that the operation
skillfully performed. But the prosecu-
aion declared that the doctor had or
dered her removal to a distant hospi-
tai on a cold day, and that her death
Judge, who now sits in the appellate
division of the supreme court, said
there was enough evidence to let the
case go to the jury, and although the
doctor was acquitted. it cost him his
practice and his reputation.
In my Judgment, said the speaker,
1.-The law should be so amended that a
physician or other person, acting ac-
cording to his own best judgment,
should not be held guilty"
DR.. Morrell who started a discussion
after the reading of the paper, said it
was hardly fair to hold all physicians
as criminals. He thought the law was
really and properly aimed at Quacks,
who worked untold injury to those that
came within their ken.
Charles c. Demond said his own ex-
perience proved that a doctor could
never look him in the eye and tell him
what his ailment was.
Il go TO a DOCTOR" he said. TASK him
what ails me, and he says he thinks
this is the matter with me or that is
the matter with me. But he never an
swers my question directly
Alfred E. Ammen thought the stat
ute led physicians to exercise more
care. No doctor could be convicted I'M
less it was certain that he had been
criminally careless. He referred to
the death of Elliott F. Shepard as an
instance. 1t had been said openly that
his doctors killed him by administer
ing ether when he was not in a fit
condition to be etherized. Yet these
doctors were not indicted
John Sabine Smith said there were
many laws on the books that were not
intended to be enforced except in ex-
treme cases. He referred to the recent
accident that led to the death of Mr..
Kernochan. He doubted whether the
young woman whose horse knocked
him down would ever be tried, as the
occurrence was undoubtedly an acct
dent.