Elmore County Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1910-1915, 1913-11-01
Popular Talks on Law.
THE DOCTORS RESPONSIBILITIES


ment of a patient he is responsible to-
the patient for resulting injury. AS
a general practitioner is supposed to
be possessed of ordinary skill and re-
quired to exercise the usual care he
is liable TO his patients in damages
In court of law ii injuries occur
to the patient because of his failure
to do So
In the first place a physician may
arbitrarily refuse to take any case.
He is under no legal obligation to
serve any person If he does not SO
desire. He cannot be legally com
PEELED to accept a case with or with
out pay. But ii he does accept
case he is responsible to the patient
for his acts whether he is acting for
pay gratuitously.
Given proper opportunity for q, col
plete examination and diagnosis-the
physician, once he accepts the case,
Is bound to use usual skill and care
in the diagnosis. Following the dag
nosis the physician is expected to
follow the method of treatment usual
in his profession. Ii he does that
with usual skill and care he has full.
filled his duties, is not responsible
to the patient for results, nor liable
for want of success. The law seems
to expect the physician to follow the
usual course of treatment and to
deviate therefrom at his own risk.
In many cases the courts hold
physicians to a rather strict account
Ing fer their acts. Something of the
attitude of the courts may be deter
mined from a recent case in which
woman sued a 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 1t was IA inches square.
Plaintiff charged that the surgeon
continued to treat her for six months
thereafter, during which time he
permitted the sponge to remain im-
bedded in her, and that by reason
thereof she suffered intense pain, was
severely injured internally, and was
compelled to suffer second opera
ton at the hands of another surgeon
for the purpose of relieving her con-
dition, which operation resulted in
finding and removing the sponge.
The surgeon undertook to excuse
himself because, in the performance
OF the operation, it was necessary in
careful and skilled surgery to secure
the assistance of certain nurses, in
ternes, and associate surgeons in
and about the hospital, and that In
Guiding 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 removing from
the body, and that he relied upon
the accuracy of her count, and that
II there was any error in her count
he was not responsible. The trial
resulted In verdict for $4,000, and
the surgeon appealed. The Supreme
court Of Ohio held that defendant
was responsible for the proper re-
moval 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 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
physician is entitled to a reasonable
sum in payment for his services.
Just what is reasonable sum is
sometimes difficult to determine.
If 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 be-
comes the duty Of the jury to de-
termine this reasonable sum. To aid
the jury to determine what is a
reasonable sum evidence is presented
Of ordinary charges by physicians III
A physician of great emf
hence in his profession and of UNI
usual skill is entitled to extra pay
ment accordingly. The courts Of the
different states are In hopeless con-
flict as to whether the financial
condition Of the patient should vary