Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-11-20
Ruling for Physicians at Hos
pitaI for the Insane.
JUSTICE STAFFORD'S VIEW
Testimony Regarding Condition Of
Patients Not Confidential.
EVERYTHING OF OBJECTION
Case Of John T. Cover Before the
Court, and Asylum officials
Were Witnesses.

That the law preventing physicians
from testifying to confidential communi-
cations received from their patients does
not necessarily apply to the physicians
at the Government Hospital for the In
sane testifying to the mental condition
of patients under their care has been de-
cided by Justice Stafford of the District
Supreme Court.
John T. Cover, an inmate OF st. Eliza
beth's sought by habeas corpus proceed
ings against DR.. White the superintend-
ent to be released on the ground that
he was of sound mind. When the hos
pital physicians were about to testify to
their opinion Of Covers sanity. gathered
from their observations of him and COM
munications received from his, the at
torney for Cover objected on the ground
that under the law Of the District Of
Columbia communications from a patient
to his physician were privileged. and that
the physician could only testify when the
patient chose to waive the privilege.
Opinion of the Court.
In the course OF his opinion everything
this objection, Justice Stafford said:
'Tt is plain that tho evidence of his
present mental condition must be sought
for largely. If not exclusively. among
those who are in daily contact with him
and have had an opportunity to observe
him for a considerable period of time.
Everything he says and does must be
considered by such an observer in fairly
determining the question of his sanity. 1t
is all information that Is necessary to
enable him to diagnose and treat the
case, II he be a physician.
Perhaps 1t should be said that 1t was
all acquired by him In attending the pa
tient. Perhaps 1t cannot be said that 1t
is all confidential In its nature. But IL 1t
be assumed that the physician in the hos
pital for the insane was intended to be
included IN this section OF the code, as
the physician of the patient, then 1t
might be difficult to say exactly what COM
munications from the patient were not
each and all of them may have some ef
feet upon his judgment touching the ma
ture OF the patients disease and the
proper remedy to be applied.
Opposite View Cited.
at seems more reasonable to suppose
that the legislature did not have in mind
the relation between the officials Of a
hospital for the insane and the patients
therein when they framed this section, es-
pecially when the question on trial Is the
very right Of the government to detain the
patient as being Of unsound mind"
The justice further remarked that such
q construction as was commended for on
behalf of the petitioner would paralyze
the COVER nment in its treatment of the in
sane and could not have been intended by
the legislature. Justice Stafford also held
that even il communications from patient
to physician under these circumstances
were privileged, yet In this case Cover
had himself waived the privilege by bring
ing the proceeding.
"The petitioner says to DR.. White, Show
the court why you are holding me In the
hospital and then when DIR. White at
tempts to show, by stating the communi-
cations of the petitioner himself which
show him to be insane. the petitioner re-
plies: But that is privileged. and the
court should not allow you to state It! "
From the courts refusal to grant a re-
hearing. based on this ruling. Attorney r.
p. Evans. rep. esenting the petitioner. has
noted an appeal to the District Court Of
Appeals.