The central record. (Lancaster, Ky.) 18??-current, 1912-09-27
Strange Case
Of DR.. K

and or now ne interpreted the
ethics of his profession and acted on
it.
'T was reused one night" he said,
''by a telephone call. An unfamiliar
voice asked me If 1 could attend a
man who had been injured. l an
swered that 1 could If the case was
urgent, but before could ask who was
calling, the speaker answered: All
right, doctor. I'll call at your house in
| ten minutes with carriage
almost before l had time to dress,
| the doorbell rang. 1 unlocked the
| door, and man, wearing long ul-
ster, dark hat and a pair of colored
| glasses, entered.
Doctor he said, before we start
l want to make request. This case,
as I told you, is urgent. But before
/ We start, must have your assurance
that you will treat this visit as a con-
| fidential mission. 1 can't say any
more, except to add that you're run
ming no risk of any kind In helping
me. And you can name your own
| fee.'
There was nothing about the mans
appearance that appeared suspicious.
He was quiet and self-possessed-
| there wasn't a trace of nervousness
about him, and he was well dressed.
| The request was somewhat unusual,
but, after all. nearly everything that
We learn professionally is held in the
strictest confidence without any def
mite understandings to that effect, so
l thought there was no reason for re-
| fusing to make the agreement.
81 took my hat and We started. The
| carriage, l noticed, was a closed one.
We got in, the man turned on small
electric light and then drew the blinds
over the windows.
Doctor he said, I'm going to ask
you to take this trip without knowing
where you're going. I'll assure you it's
all right. l want you to blindfold
yourself before We leave the carriage.
until We get inside the house.
well, didn't like the looks of this,
out. OF course l wasn't at all afraid
for my own safety. By the time the
carriage stopped didn't have the least
idea what part Of town we were in
we had made SO many turns. l put on
the blindfold, as my visitor requested,
and We went up some steps and into a
house.
Upstairs, found my patient. He
had been shot twice. Revolver bullets,
they were. The wounds weren't dam
gerous, but they were painful because
they had not been treated earlier.
81 dressed then, told the woman
who was there what sort of care the
patient ought to have, and then told
them that I'd have to see the man at
least two or three times more before
l could answer for his safe recovery.
The man with the dark glasses
quietly assented to this, but insisted
that he should bring me at night, as
he had that time. I agreed.
The next morning the papers told
of robbery, In which householder
had been wounded, after shooting one
of the burglars, who succeeded in es-
Gaping. All the facts indicated that
my patient of the night before was
the burglar who had been shot. ! felt
sure could locate the house. The
householder recovered quickly.
THE question stared at me: Did the
ethics Of the medical profession allow
me to go to the police and tell them
what knew, or did my promise bind
me to secrecy? j thought 1t over all
day and finally decided that I had no
right to say anything about the mat
ter. l made three more trips in the
same manner and finally decided that
the man would get along without any
more calls. All this time | watched
the papers, but NO trace was found of
the burglars. When I made my last
visit l told the man who had first
called on me that my fee would be
$25. He took from a large roll two
500 bills and handed them to me
without word. He drove me home
and that was the last I ever saw of
either Of them.
THAT was a sqod many years ago,
but I've often wondered whether l did
right in not violating that mans con-
fidence"
Il don't think you did," said men,
Der of the group, 1.-THE medical pro-
fession has no right to shield q crimi-
nal. Women and children should be
given the greatest protection We can
give them-the same as on a vessel
at sea-but no word given a criminal
ia binding"
But suppose It had turned out that
the man was not the burglar in ques-
ton. l believe he was, but it might
have been otherwise-T
That's true" said a third. 1T was
all right to keep your promise so long
as you had no actual knowledge that
the man was a criminal. Where you
made your mistake was In making
such a ridiculous agreement In the
first place."
"And let a man. dangerously in.
jured, suffer-" asked the first speaker.
Remember, when 1 first agreed to
secrecy the case had no particularly
suspicious appearance. I could cite
dozen different circumstances under
which serious accident might happen
and which the persons connected with
would, with perfect right, go to great
lengths to keep secret. So could
either of you"
Which Of the three was right?