El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1899-11-24
MEDICAL ExpERTTESTIMONY.

|
A Very Plain Statement From
the Standpoint of the Physician
doctors Must Rely On Their
Judgment As Well As On the
State OF Facts In A Given Case
Do Opinions In Any Profession
Ever Agree?
The following contribution to the
HERALD will be read with much inter-
est by all who have followed the course
of the Hanway case in the district
court:
"MEDICAL EXPERT TESTIMONY
Physicians are generally of one mind
in agreeing that the present system of
elicitiug medical or surgical opinions
in legal cases is the worst possible form
which could be adopted and one for
which they are in no sense responsible,
but on the contrary are placed in an
Objectionable attitude to their own
sense of the proper fitness of things by
the law-making body.
AS rule physicians have no love
for the atmosphere of contention and
| pickering which pervades the Ordi-
| nary court and are taken against their
will from more congenial occupation
and usually without compensation to
spend hours over matter in which
they have no personal interest. They
generally believe that in matters re-
curing their expert opinion they
should be summoned by the trial
judge and not by either side of case.
and questioned by him as to the facts
it is desired to establish. This how
ever is not the law and seems not to be
the desire of lawyers, or the law would
soon be so framed as to permit more
reasonable aud sensible method than
that now in vogue. On the contrary
lawyers summon physicians on OPP
posite sides of case, strive their ut
most to make them partizans by con-
tining the answers to questions within
limits which suit their purposes and
then attempt to ridicule the opinions
thus obtained.
The Hsnway trial just concluded in
the district court has been notable in
has publicly demonstrated that the
medical profession of Ell Paso is
abreast of the times in all progressive
matters pertaining to their profession.
In the second place, contrary to she
stale old song OF the mind too lazy to
snalyze or too ignorant to comprehend,
"that doctors disagree" this trial has
ity in the opinions of the N edical ex-
perts.
In all the scientific questions elicit
ed in the trial, there was so far as we
are able to Judge but one conflicting
statement between the doctors, and
that was where some held that air was
necessary to the propagation of
pathogenic bacteria and others held
this view to be erroneous.
That they had different opinions as
to the better course to pursue in a Civ
en- case is true and necessarily always
will be true in all matters of opinion,
on any subject, while the human
race exists. If this were not true of
medicine as OF all else, then the prac.
being an Intellectual pursuit
would be an automatic device like the |
type setting machine. This view of
medicine would belittle it and it is
because this ia not true that each of US
selects some particular man as our |
medical adviser, not because his opin-
ion varies from that of another on |
we believe that, given a certain con-
dition OF i'll health to contend with,
his judgment in the application of
those scientific principles, in which
both agree, would be better than that
of his neighbor. It is questionable
policy even If not bad taste to misrepre-
sent facts and make it appear that
when summoned in due pro-
cess OF law are voluntary prosecutors
or defendants in a trial case.
AS matter of easy demonstration
there is no such diversity of opinion
among physicians on scientific matters
pertaining to their profession Is there
is among lawyers.
The trial of every case-of which the
Hanway case is no exception-is filed
with instances of contention among
lawyers or points of law long estab-
ished, and of exceptions by lawyers to
,he rulings of the judge on these same
points of law.
The Circus Coming Back.