Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1913-12-19

to follow the method Of treatment
usual In his profession, If he does
that with usual skill and care he has
fulfilled his duties, is not RESPONSE
BILE to the patient for results, nor
liable for want of success. The law
seems to expect the physician to fol-
low the usual course of treatment
and to deviate therefrom at his own
risk
In many cases the courts hold ply
sicians to a rather strict accounting
for their acts. Something of the at
titude of the courts may be deter
mined from a recent case in which
woman sued surgeon for negli-
gence in performing an operation.
While performing the operation the
surgeon used and inserted in the
opening made in the patient a large
gauZe sponge, which he failed to re-
move after completing the operation,
although it was IA inches square.
Plaintiff charged that the surgeon
continued to treat her for six months
thereafter, during which time he per.
mitted the sponge to remain i'm
bedded in her, and that by reason
thereof she suffered intense pain,
was severely injured internally, and
was compelled to suffer a second op-
Grafton at the hands OF another sur
geon for the purpose Of relieving
her condition, which operation re-
suited in finding and removing the
sponge. The surgeon undertook to
excuse himself because, in the per-
Torrance of the operation, it was
necessary in careful and skilled sur
gerry to secure the assistance Of
certain nurses, internes, and asso-
ciate surgeons in and about the hos
pital, and that included among them
was one Miss Kelly, the head nurse,
to whom he intrusted the duty of
counting the sponges before putting
them in the body and upon remoy-
he relied upon the accuracy Of her
count, and that if there was any En-
ror in her count he was not resp0n-
sible. The trial resulted in YER
dict for $4,000, and the surgeon ap-
pealed The Supreme Court of Ohio
held that defendant was responsible
for the proper removal of the sponge,
A physician who treats a patient
is entitled to compensation, unless
there was a distinct understanding
that he was to perform the services
free of charge. If a distinct amount
Of compensation was agreed upon
that is the amount to be paid. More
frequently no rate Of payment is set
in advance, in which case the physi-
clan is entitled to reasonable sum
in payment for his services.
Just what is a reasonable sum is
sometimes difficult to determine. II
the patient refuses to accept the
doctors own estimate Of the worth
of his services, and forces the doc
tor to sue him for the amount, it
becomes the duty Of the jury to de-
termine this reasonable sum To aid
the jury to determine what is q
reasonable sum evidence is present
ed OF ordinary charges by physicians
in general a physician Of great en-
inence in his profession and of I'M
usual skill is entitled to extra pay
ment accordingly. The courts Of the
different states are i'll hopeless con-
flict as to whether the financial con-
dition of the patient should vary the
charge Of the services rendered him.
But the mere fact that a doctor
charges a rich man more than a poor
man does not prove that he has
overcharged the rich man. It may
we'll be that his services are reas-
onably worth what he charged the
rich man and that he has simply
undercharged the poor man out Of
the consideration and generosity that
is common among good physicians.
Copyright, 1913, by Walter K. Towers