Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-09-10

ject for some future consideration.
THE investigating committee made
a thorough inspection Of every builoing
on the hospital reservation except
stables and garages. ~.
Juvenile Court are limited, definitely,
to three cases. The first is the case
of a patient, apparently personal
1 friend of the judge, who was Admitted
| to the psychopathic department OF the
hosoital, April "a. 1928, while under
the influence Of an overdose OF Ger.
tain drug and with some history OF
addiction thereto. Unfortunately Tor
! ed this patient and the nurse who
attended her, both left the institution
before these charges were heard OF and
we are. therefore, without their teSt1-
mony. The report OF the Superlntend-
ert of the hospital, on this case, Is IN
cCrporated in the record. From this re-
port 1t Is impossible to conclude that
there was anything irregular, harsh or
! improper in the treatment OF TINS
patient. 1t seems to be quite usual
hospital practice to relieve psyche
pathic patients of their belongings Cfor
safe-keeping), to require them to change
to hospital clothing, to subject them to
necessary restraint and to release them
only when responsible persons receive
,, them. So far, as the board has been
able to ascertain, no charge OF miscon-
duct, ineff1ciency or discourtesy, In this
case, was made until fifteen QS
months after the patient was dis
charged, and then only through the
character, seasonably made to this
board, would have been promptly in
vestigated and any offender summarily
dealt with. The board feels that 1t
can confidently give the same assur-
ance with reference to any complaint
| made to the superintendent Of the
/ hospital
Case for Legal Decision.
THE next is the case of Regina
Burks, a minor, who, in an emergency
donated a certain amount of her blood
for TRANSMISSION to a patient critically
in need thereof. AS this case is now
| the subject of threatened litigation
against certain officials of the hospital
personally. the board deems it improper
| to express any opinion on the legal
question whether the taking of this
minors blood without the consent OF
her parents, constituted a technical
| assault. as claimed. The question will
doubtless be determined by proper legal
| authority. in due time. In the mean
| time. there is no probability of another
! such occurrence until the question has
been so determined. The report of the
superintendent on this case is in the
| record.
From this report. it appears that
the action complained of was prompted
by the most humane of motives and
| that it probably resulted in saving a
| life, and further that no harm to the
minor resulted and that there existed
no reasonable ground for fear that harm
would follow.
1.-The next is the case of Mrs. Nettie
Thompson, a patient who died at the
| hospital on July 25, 1929. following a
genealogical operation performed the
! preceding day by member of the Wis
! iting staff, also member of the fac
| ulty of one of the schools mentioned.
The complaint in this case Is, In sub
/ stance, that the patient did not go to
! the hospital for an operation. that she
was not in a condition to be operated
upon. that the operation was unneces-
! sary and unwise and was performed
against the patients will, and without
notice to her friends. The report Of the
superintendent of the hospital on thA
case, is also in the record. The testi-
! mony of the mother of this unfortu-
nate woman and of her best friend, who
was closely in touch with the case,
has been taken and the chief of staff
of the hospital. the surgeon who oper-
ated, the chief of the genealogical
service and the nurse in attendance
have been examined at length. 1t seems
clear that there was reluctance on the
part of this patient to go to the hos
pital Naturally so: most people are
reluctant. 1t is said that she was
urged TO go by the judge Of the Juve-
nile Court-for examination only-but
testimony from her best friend, a pre-
sumably critical witness, shows that the
patient. before she went to the hos
pital was examined by the physician OF
that friend and at her inistence, and
was advised by him that an operation
was desirable.
Believe Party Consented.
1.-THE board is constrained to believe,
| from the evidence before it, that this
patients consent to the operation was
given and that her reluctance to submit
to it was overcome when the advice of
the. physician she had consulted was
backed by the advice of the surgeons
at the hospital. At any rate, the testi-
mony of reputable witnesses, both nurses
/ and doctors, including the operating
| surgeon, who is not on the paid staff
and whose standing is vouched for by
the great university in which he teaches
| would have to be accepted, in any tri-
bunal, as outweighing the inference that
she could not have consented because
she had objected to going to the hos
| pital at all. Furthermore, the board
does not see how 1t can disregard the
testimony of surgeons that this oper-
alton was desirable and necessary, If the
| patient was to improve; that it was not
unusual, that neither the character OF
the operation nor the condition of the
| patient justified any fear that fatal re-
suits would follow, and the report OF
the consideration given the case by the
entire staff as we'll as the very deliber-
ate testimony of the operating surgeon
that he still thinks the operation was
proper, and accept the opinion, how
even sincere. Of a lawyer that this oper-
alton should not have taken place, nc
matter how great the learning, how
high the position or how deep the SYM
pathy of the lawyer.
"One feature of this case brought out
In the oral testimony but not mentioned
In either of the communications refer
red to, which presents, from one angle
more serious question than any of the
foregoing, will be dealt with in a subse-
quent paragraph OF this report. While
negligence. improper methods and lack
oI skill IN ueclolng upon, arranging for
or conducting single operation, II
domination and summary treatment OF
the guilty parties, the board feels that
one such charge, unsustained by evil
dence, does not justify the wholesale
condemnation Of the hospital and all its
activities.
Questions Misleading.
While the Judge of the Juvenile
Court indicated that there was no me-
cessity for accepting the boards invita-
ton to testify. for. the very sound legal
reason that any further statement from
ner would be hearsay. the communica-
ton acknowledging the Commuters in
Vitatlon to appear, contained numerous
questions, all of which were nrono,InrioJ