The Providence Medical Journal. Vol. 7, 1906. Edited and Published by 10081 The Providence Medical Journal. 18 08 Editorial Correspondence, Books for Review and Exchanges should be addressed to the Editor 148 Broad Street. Correspondence relating to Subscriptions, Advertising, etc., should be addressed to the Business Manager, 274 Broad Street. Vol. 7. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $1.00 PER ANNUM. SINGLE COPIES, 20 Cents. JANUARY, 1906. Editorial. No. 1. EDITORIAL COMMENT. In the strenuous life which most physicians live, endeavoring to gain a livelihood, the temptation to profit by the multitude of suits brought against corporations and individuals for damages in accident cases is very strong. Too strong in some cases to be resisted, the doctor agrees to testify for a contingent fee and from that moment his testimony is necessarily biased and of little value. It may be ethical, it may be right for a lawyer to suppress unfavorable testimony, to magnify favorable factors, to bully the opposing witnesses and put the desired words into the mouth of his own, to avail himself of all the tricks of his trade to win his case, but it is not ethical and it is not right for the doctor as a witness to allow possible pecuniary profit to influence his testimony. Most lawyers at some time or other defend criminal cases, being assigned to them by the court, but the fact that a man had so defended criminals would hardly be adduced as a reason why he should not have right on his side. In a recent action against a corporation the plaintiff's attorney asked each physician who was called by the defendant if he was not employed by the corporation in numerous similar cases, if he was ever employed otherwise and tried to impress on the jury that the physician was an employee of the corporation and so mindful of his duties to them that his testimony must be considered as already prejudiced against the plaintiff. The fact that the lawyer had at one time unusual facilities for knowing who were usually employed by the corporation as medical witnesses did not prevent him from using this information against it, and the implication that the physician under oath would be influenced by his pecuniary reward was an insult to the profession at large. Such an implication to individuals is, however, unfortunately at times true and never more likely to be true than when the physician is interested in the case for a contingent fee. Some of the statements made by apparently reputable and educated physicians are surprising. We have heard physicians testify that a blow over the mastoid caused a patient to be near-sighted; that a stream of water from a watering cart inadvertently thrown on a passenger in a car entered the ear and caused by traumatism an acute otitis media; that a kick directed against the coccyx caused nervous deafness; that a fracture of the femur should always unite without shortening; and that a green stick produces more nervous shock than any other form. No one believes these statements but the jury. A man recently said to the writer, "I wish I could get a job on the jury, I never earned so much in my life; but there is no chance for me, I am not educated enough." That man within a short time served on the jury and was asked to decide a case involving $20,000. Recently there was a suit brought for $10,000 for alleged injuries. The testimony was absurd, the claims false in every particular and the only fact brought out by the testimony or in the attorney's plea was that the plaintiff was poor and needed the money while the defendant had enough and could spare a little. The case went to the jury and an informal ballot was taken. Eight men voted for the defendant, four for the plaintiff. After some hours in debate it was suggested that, inasmuch as they were unlikely to agree and the plaintiff would prefer to pay a little rather than to be obliged to retry the case, a verdict be given for the plaintiff and the amount should be left to another vote. Each member wrote the sum which he thought was fair. Five wrote one cent; two, one dollar; one said ten dollars; two, twenty-five; one, fifty and one, five thousand. How did they settle it? When eleven men averaged ten dollars and twenty-two cents and one crank said five thousand,-why, they averaged the whole amount and gave a verdict for $425. And this is what is called a fair and impartial trial by jury. There is no other course for the honest and conscientious physician in these cases than to refuse contingent fees. If litigants want your services let them pay for it; stick to the facts and let the lawyers do the juggling with truth. Do not venture an opinion favorable to your side because the attorney asks you to do so but be honest with yourself and state your belief irrespective of the final outcome. If a lawyer comes to talk with you about the preparation of a case charge him for the consultation. It is what he would do to clients and undoubtedly the time spent with you is duly charged against them. As a rule lawyers do not waste their time in an effort to promote justice, theirs is a more sordid reason. When we are called to assist in the settlement of a litigation we should be fair, honest, positive and remunerated. RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL. The annual report for 1905 presents much that is of interest. The following figures from the report of the Superintendent, Dr. Peters, show concisely the growth of the past twenty years : "In twenty years the number of patients benefited by hospital treatment increased from 752 to 4,500, almost six-fold, the daily average, from 80 to 247, about three-fold, and the average stay per patient was reduced from 39 days to 20 days. In other words each of the 4,500 patients were saved 19 days, as compared to the average stay twenty years ago, and when reckoning on the basis of wages paid to an average earner the saving to himself is considerable and to the community at large, enormous. It must also be remembered that among these 4,500 patients treated there were many who would have been considered incurable from a surgical standpoint twenty years ago." The report calls renewed attention to urgent needs in equipment ;—a new service building, increased accommodations for the nurses and especially new operating rooms. The last is of pressing importance as the present facilities are wholly inadequate for the increasing operative work of the hospital. The total expenditures for the year amounted to $155,863.63; receipts from all sources, $150,622.93, leaving a deficiency of $5,240.70. The report includes elaborate medical and surgical records, records of six special departments, records of operations and the reports of the pathologist and librarian. |