The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, MAY 20, 1902.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 420, 20 May 1902, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, MAY 20, 1902.

PROFESSIONAL INHUMANITY. The case of the Dunedin lady, Mrs Marshall, is one that must arouse the indignation of everyone. The simple facts are that Mr Marshall, a wellknown chemist, asserts that his wife’s life was sacrificed because two wellknown medicos declined to meet his family physician in consultation over an extreme operation. One of the doctors concerned (Dr Davies), says that he had not the necessary instrument, and even if he had defends his position, saying he will not meet any homeopath. I-lis own words to a reporter are “In any case I would not consult with Dr Stephenson. Marshall then said that the patient was in a very serious condition, and I replied to that that I considered that all the more reason why 1 should not consult with Dr. Stephenson. Those are the mere facts, and 1 thank you for the opportunity of giving my answer, i can understand mat in a country place where there are only two medical men, say one homeopaLhist and one allopathist, if one asks assistance from the other in a case of file or deatli such as this was, it is an absolute necessity that they should meet. It would be cruel if they did not, but in a city like Dunedin, where there are a large number of doctors, knowing as I do that some of them have not the slightest objection to meeting a homeopathist, or even a travelling quack, t consider that I, as one of those that do object, have a perfect right to refuse to attend the .patient, leaving the case to others who do not mind to attend if they see fit to do so. My refusal causes no extra risk or suffering to the unfortunate patient when others are willing to attend. I consider that my skill is my own property, and that I should not be compelled to dispense with it. You may drag a horse to the water, but you cannot force him to drink. If I am compelled to go to a case I cannot be compelled to use my skill upon it. Supposing I had gone under compulsion does it necessarily follow that the patient would have got the benefit of my skill ? If I had gone under protest, as would have had to be the case if I went at all, I should have felt very uncomfortable. It is only a few months ago that the same sort of thing happened to me. That, however, was a case in which there was no question of an instrument. Dr. Riley sent to me a message much the same as that which Marshall brought,and I went without the slightest hesi - tation. Because Dr. Riley is an allopathic doctor, I might have refused it had 1 chosen, but I would have considered I was acting wrongly by a brother practitioner. I do not consider Dr. Stephenson a brother practitioner. Our systems of treatment are utterly dissimilar, and in those circumstances the result would be decided!/ prejudicial instead of beneficial to the patient’s prospects of recovery.” WeJ may the Otago Times stigmatise the affair as a scandal sullying the name of the medical profession, and the explanation of Dr Davies only makes his position worse. It shows brazen effrontery in defence of what every layman must consider revolting inhumanity. It is shocking to think Rial, any man, whether .he be a doctor who is a stickler for professional eti. quelle or a man without such ideas, should declare that the more serious the case the greater would be the reason why he should not give the benefit of his skill in preventing suffering or in saving life. It is possible that no matter who: might have attended Mrs Marshall would still have lost her life, but all the probabilities are that Mr Marshall is correct when he states that his wife’s life was sacrificed because of the refusal of certain doctors,to attend. The sad fact that a death has ensued has naturally aroused the public indignation, and at another time sucti callousness on the part of professional men might have been allowed to pass, for the reason that the public would not have heard of it; but the cruelty would not have been less for that reason.