The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1921-09-07
PROFESSIONAL SECRECY.
Doctors Are Obliged to Tell in the Eng.
lish Divorce Courts.

The recent legal dispute over the admis-
Sibihty of a physicians evidence in the
now celebrated case of the James 4. Still
man, many physicians contending that
information received from patients should
be cloaked with the veil of secrecy even
from the courts. calls attention to the way
IN which these matters are handled in
England Mr.. Justice Horridge ruled
that no matter if n number of physicians
agreed among themselves that patient s
condolences should remain inviolate under
any and all circumstances. nevertheless
the law could take no cognizance of such
an agreement, and that the physician
should answer any, and all questions
when called upon as a witness in one of
the kings courts.
The justice and the physician-witneSs
had considerable argument over the mat
ter, but the former was inflexible and the
witness finally bowed to his. decision
The London correspondent of the Medical
record sends an account of the argument
which appears in the issue of July 90
The medical man was called upon to
give evidence respecting an ailment from
which it was alleged his patient, a party
TO a divorce suit, had been suffering
The privilege of exemption was claimed
by DIR. John Elliott of Chester, who en-
tered the witness box. Justice Horridgc
said there was no privilege for a doctor
planned that he and other medical men
formed a particular clinic on the distinct
understanding that professional secrecy
of what happened would be observed and
upheld by the ministry of health.
The justice said that he was sorry. but
the ministry had no power affecting the
jurisdiction of the divorce court Doctors
were subject to the orders of the court and
had to disclose what they knew. DIR. Ell
liott said he didn't wish to deny this r1ll-
ing. but only desired to point out how
painful 1T was for medical men in such
cases. Justice HOrridge then asked if
any statute could be produced which
would uphold the contention of the wit
ness. DIR. Elliott referred to a regulation
under the public health act.
Yes, said the justice. article H. sub
section ?; that may be a very good regn-
latien betweer yourselves. but it has
nothing to do with these courts
Inc witness said patients at the clinic
v"re not referred to by name; they were
Only identified by number, and the reg
lSter was always kept under lock and key
The justice remarked that that did not
affect the jurisdiction of the kings court
The doctor went on to point out that some
medical men undertook the duties simply
IN the interests of the public. They
thought it public duty to try to abate
tins terrible disease, and they little antici |
pated that they would be placed in such
a painful position as he was now.
The witness craved the indulgence of
the court to protest at having to stand mn |
publicly and violate one of the earliest
and most sacred principles of the medicalI
profession, one which the profession held
most dear.
Justice HOrridge said he could not see
anything painful about it. 4 medical
man was bound to observe the regulations
not to disclose voluntarily information
Ne mad obtained, but SO far as regards |
giving information, which he was bound /
70 give in assisting the administration of /
Justice, it was his duty to give it.
Dr. Elliott said that medical men did /
not undertake not to disclose Voluntarily
secrets: they undertook NOT
% disclose them at all. 1t was one of fine
.enets of the medical profession that CON /
ldence must obtain between doctors and
He said he hoped the justice
would recognize their position.
Justice Horridge said he thought If wasI
not an unfair obligation on doctors tn
lssist in the administration of Justice.
The witness said there was another
Joint he would like the court to listen to
hat was the effect of not keeping those
proceedings secret. The justice said he
lad nothing to do with that. whereupon
Or. Elliott said he must bow to his ruling
nd give evidence.
1T would seem" adds the correspond
Mt, that in this country the Jurisdiction
I the courts stands above regulations
assed by departments of government. IL
q the opinion of that court. such a course
ill assist Justice However. the last has
OF been heard of the matter, for while
ourts of law are VIGOROUSLY Jealous of
aeir-rights and privileges, the MEDICAL
rofession is no less jealous of its ethics.
allowed by tradition" IN