Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/386

 Doctors versus Law. brings to pass the calling in of another doctor against his wishes. Perhaps he may be al together retired from the case. It is then discovered that his treatment has been wrong, shows want of skill and that it is im possible to remedy the wrong he has done. Under such circumstances a court has said that a surgeon is responsible for his wrong ful act, although the case is turned over to another, who either could not then help the patient or who might, by proper care and skill, be able to discover the error of the first doctor and relieve the patient. In the latter event the first surgeon does not escape liability. It is true the patient may eventu ally receive the proper treatment, but the first surgeon has prolonged the illness by his want of skill which can be measured in dam ages. In the former event where both sur geons blunder and exhibit their want of skill, the two wrongs do not make a right. If both erred wrongfully both are responsible to the patient, or if the first erred, and the second was unable to correct such error, the first is responsible for his act even though the case was taken from him. If a surgeon has done everything reason able skill dictates, the law will not permit him to be punished with damages. This was well illustrated in a reported case. A man had fallen from a building. A surgeon was called in, who attended to a broken arm and other injuries. The patient all the while complained of great pain in the hip. The hip and leg were again and again examined with the result that the surgeon was unable to discover any fracture at the point. Not content, however, with his own judgment, he called into consultation the highest surgi cal ability, with whom the most minute ex amination failed to show any fracture. Not withstanding all this attention and skill, when the man was able to go around, one leg proved to be shorter than the other and he sued his surgeon for damages, by reason of such shortened leg. The judge and jury were of the opinion that the surgeon had done all that reasonable care and skill had

351

required and that he was not liable for re sults that proved to be beyond that. In another case the question was whether in setting a broken leg, the surgeon was bound to bring to his aid the skill necessary to set the leg so as to make it strong and of equal length with the other when healed. The conclusion of the court was that that would be expecting too much. If the sur geon used all reasonable care and skill, and was not negligent in any way, he had done all that could be expected of him, no matter whether the broken leg proved to be a good or poor match for its neighbor. If the court had taken any other view than this then a surgeon might be expected to set a leg bowlegged provided its mate was crooked. A physician is not bound to be omniscient. It is the patient's duty to tell him sufficient about himself so that he may act intelli gently. It will not do to evade the questions asked, or give false answers, or keep mum, one must make a clean breast of the whole matter to the physician if he wants to hold him for his acts. In a case, a man had been kicked by a vicious horse and fell, striking his head, afterward he went to a dentist, who without being told anything of the accident chloroformed him for the purpose of ex tracting certain teeth. Partial paralysis fol lowed the extracting. The question to be determined by the court was whether the teeth pulling produced the paralysis, or the kick of the horse, or the chloroforming or the three combined. The court washed its hands of the matter by deciding that a dentist is only bound to look to natural and probable effects and is not answerable for negligence or results arising from the pe culiar condition or temperament of patients, of which he had no knowledge. If a physician makes an honest mistake in the treatment of a case, or an error of judg ment, is he answerable for the same? The determination of such a question often pre sents very nice distinctions. If the disease or wound showed reasonable grounds for un certainty or doubt, and if the physician fails