PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS: IS JUSTICE SERVED OR OBSTRUCTED BY CLOSING THE DOCTOR'S MOUTH ON THE WITNESS STAND?
Authors: Zechariah Chafee
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (1943)

Article1 April 1943PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS: IS JUSTICE SERVED OR OBSTRUCTED BY CLOSING THE DOCTOR'S MOUTH ON THE WITNESS STAND?ZECHARIAH CHAFEE JR.ZECHARIAH CHAFEE JR.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-18-4-606 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ExcerptPhysicians and surgeons are required by the ethics of their profession to preserve the secrets of their patients which have been communicated to them or learned from the inspection of symptoms and other bodily conditions. How far this ethical requirement should be enforced by law is a question on which there is much difference of opinion among both lawyers and doctors.No state has made disclosure of confidence a crime, as it is in France, but in some the license to practice may be revoked for this cause. Seventeen states still seem to preserve the view of the English common...1 These states are Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia. Google Scholar2 N. Y. Civil Practice Act (1920) §§ 352, 354, as subsequently amended. See 3 Gilbert-Bliss, Civil Practice of New York Annotated (1926), §§ 352, 354; and (1941) Cumulative Supplement to same. Google Scholar3 Wigmore, § 2380, n. 5, gives full references to the statutes in the following states. The ensuing list mentions only the date of the original enactment as given by Wigmore, without regard to subsequent amendments. The statutes vary in their terms, particularly as to waiver of the privilege. The ensuing list mentions only variations of especial medical interest, including the fact of adoption of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act (U.N.D.A.): Alaska (1913) (except for insanity); Arizona (1913) (U.N.D.A.); Arkansas (1919); California (1872) (except for mental condition and venereal disease); Canal Zone (1934); Colorado (1921); Columbia (Dist.) (1919) (U.N.D.A.); Hawaii (1925) (U.N.D.A.); Idaho (1919); Indiana (1926); Iowa (1897) (U.N.D.A.); Kansas (1923); Kentucky (1915); Louisiana (1928); Michigan (1915) (except for illegal marriage of persons sexually diseased); Minnesota (1913) (except for bastardy); Mississippi (1906); Missouri (1919) (except for abortion); Montana (1935) (U.N.D.A.); Nebraska (1922) (U.N.D.A.); Nevada (1912) (U.N.D.A.); New Mexico (1929) (U.N.D.A.); New York (1928) (except for narcotic investigations); North Carolina (1919) (allows presiding judge of superior court to compel disclosure when necessary to administration of justice, U.N.D.A.); North Dakota (1913); Ohio (1921) (U.N.D.A.); Oklahoma (1931) (U.N.D.A.); Oregon (1920) (U.N.D.A.); Pennsylvania (1895); Philippine Islands (1901); Porto Rico (1911) (except for malpractice, U.N.D.A.); South Dakota (1919) (U.N.D.A.); Utah (1917) (U.N.D.A.); Virgin Islands (1920); Washington (1909); West Virginia (1897) (U.N.D.A.); Wisconsin (1919) (except for lunacy and malpractice, U.N.D.A.); Wyoming (1920) (U.N.D.A.). Google Scholar4 Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, § 17, paragraph 2. This statute has been adopted in the following states and territories, of which those starred in the list do not recognize a general doctor-patient privilege: Ariz. D.C., Haw., Ia., Md.*, Mont., Neb., Nev., N.M., N.C., Oh., Okla., Ore., P.R., S.C.*, S.D., Tenn.*, Tex.*, Ut., W. Va., Wis., Wyo. Google Scholar5 See Wigmore, §§ 2332-2341. Google Scholar6 See Wigmore, §§ 2290-2329. He gives full arguments for and against this privilege in § 2291. Google Scholar7 See Wigmore, §§ 2394-2396. Google Scholar8 Morgan, "Suggested Remedy for Obstructions to Expert Testimony by Rules of Evidence," (April 1943) 2 Clinics 1627; (April 1943) 20 U. of Chi. L. Rev. Google Scholar9 The cases are collected in 114 American Law Reports Annotated 798 (1938). (This series will be hereafter cited as A.L.R.) See also Wigmore, § 2389. Google Scholar10 Harpman v. Devine, 133 Oh. St. 1, 10 N.E. (2d) 776 (1937), discussed in 11 U. Cinc. L. Rev. 544. Google Scholar11 The cases are collected in 68 A.L.R. 176 (1930); Wigmore, § 2382. Google Scholar12 The cases are collected in 22 A.L.R. 1217 (1923); 72 U. S. Law Rev. 619 (1938). Google Scholar13 The cases are collected in 39 A.L.R. 1421 (1925); 68 A.L.R. 177 (1930). On hospital attendants, see 22 Marquette L. Rev. 211 (1938). Google Scholar14 Laurie Co. v. McCullough, 174 Ind. 477, 19 N.E. 1014 (1909). Google Scholar15 Hendetshot v. Western Union Telegram Co., 106 Iowa 529, 76 N.W. 828 (1898). Google Scholar16 The cases are collected in 75 A.L.R. 393 (1931); 120 A.L.R. 1140 (1939). Google Scholar17 Liske v. Liske, 135 N. Y. Supp. 176 (1912). Google Scholar18 Yet some courts exclude them. See the authorities in Wigmore, § 2385a; 17 A.L.R. 370 (1922); 42 A.L.R. 1455 (1925); 96 A.L.R. 341 (1935). Google Scholar19 Thomas v. Morris, 286 N. Y. 266, 36 N.E. (2d) 141 (1941), annotated in 136 A.L.R. 856. Google Scholar20 The cases are collected in 58 A.L.R. 1134 (1929); 35 Law Notes (N. Y.) 87 (1931). Google Scholar21 See case cited in note 22 infra. Google Scholar22 Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Bergeron, 25 F. (2d) 680 (C.C.A. 8th, 1928). Google Scholar23 Matthews v. Rex Health and Ins. Co., 86 Ind. App. 335, 157 N.E. 467 (1927). Google Scholar24 The cases are collected in 79 A.L.R. 1131 (1932). Google Scholar25 Jennings v. Supreme Council, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 76, 81 N. Y. Supp. 90 (1903). See Nichols v. State, 109 Neb. 335, 191 N.W. 333 (1922). Google Scholar26 Meyer v. Knights of Pythias, 178 N. Y. 63, 70 N.E. 111 (1904). Google Scholar27 The cases are collected in 24 A.L.R. 1202 (1923); Wigmore, § 2383; 13 Wash. L. Rev. 141 (1938). Google Scholar28 Meyer v. State, 192 Ind. 542, 137 N.E. 547 (1922). Google Scholar29 Baird's Estate, 173 Cal. 617, 160 Pac. 1078 (1916). Google Scholar30 62 A.L.R. 680 (1929); 90 A.L.R. 646 (1934); 51 Harv. L. Rev. 1931 (1938); 31 Yale L. J. 529 (1922). Google Scholar31 The cases are collected in 31 A.L.R. 167 (1924); 126 A.L.R. 380 (1940); Wigmore, § 2391. Google Scholar32 Maine v. Maryland Casualty Co., 172 Wis. 350, 178 N.W. 749 (1920) two judges dissenting; annotated in 15 A.L.R. 1544. Google Scholar33 The cases are collected in 54 A.L.R. 412 (1928); Wigmore, § 7a. Google Scholar34 The cases are collected in 45 A.L.R. 1357 (1926); Wigmore, § 2385. Google Scholar35 People v. Murphy, 101 N. Y. 126, 4 N.E. 326 (1885). Google Scholar36 32 Mich. L. Rev. 1164 (1934). Google Scholar37 226 Lancet 1183 (June 2, 1934). Google Scholar38 Morgan, "Suggested Remedy for Obstructions to Expert Testimony by Rules of Evidence," (April 1943) 2 Clinics 1627, (April 1943) 20 U. of Chi. L. Rev. Google Scholar39 See Proposed Final Draft (March 16, 1942, submitted to the Annual Meeting, May, 1942). Google Scholar40 The New York doctor-patient statute (C P.A. § 352) is eight lines long, and it takes six pages of small type just to summarize briefly the judicial decisions interpreting these eight lines. 3 Gilbert-Bliss, Civil Practice of New York Ann. (1926) pp. 281-285; and 1941 Cumulative Supplement to same, pp. 192-194. The summaries of medical cases under § 354 occupy at least two pages more. Google Scholar41 Simonsen v. Swenson, 104 Neb. 224, 177 N.W. 831 (1920); annotated in 9 A.L.R. 1254, 20 Col. L. Rev. 890, 34 Harv. L. Rev. 312, 30 Yale L. J. 289, 75 J. Am. Med. Assn. 1207. See also Smith v. Driscoll, 94 Wash. 441, 162 Pac. 572 (1917). Google Scholar This content is PDF only. To continue reading please click on the PDF icon. Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Cambridge, Massachusetts*Received for publication January 25, 1943.Some of this paper has previously appeared in 25 Rhode Island Medical Journal 157-163 (July, 1942). The author has been greatly aided by the classic discussion in 8 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) §§ 2380-2391. See also 152 Law Times 53 (1921), debates at British Medical Association; 153 Law Times 228, 252 (1922), debates at British MedicoLegal Society; 83 Law Journal 320 (1937), debates in House of Commons.†Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 1 April 1943Volume 18, Issue 4Page: 606-617KeywordsCrimeDisclosureMedical lawMouthSurgeons ePublished: 1 December 2008 Issue Published: 1 April 1943 PDF downloadLoading ...