A DOCTOR LIBELLED

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 71, 10 August 1912, Page 2 (Supplement)

A DOCTOR LIBELLED

C2OOO DAMAGES. Damages amounting to £2OOO were ou June 14 awarded to Dr. Robert Bell in his libel action against Dr. E. F. Bashford and the British Medical Association. There was much applause in the Lord Chief Justice's Court when the special jury gave their verdict. A stay of execution was granted so that the defendants might consider the question of an appeal. Dr. Bell, the plaintiff, carries on practice at Halfmoon street, Mayfair, London. For some years he has given up the use of the knife in cancer cases, his belief being that cancer arises from an impure condition of the blood. He maintains that by dieting and other treatment the blood can be purified, and, espe- | cially if taken early, the cancer cured. I He has devoted about 2<o years to the | study of cancer. J

Dr. Bashford, who is a defendant with the British 'Medical Association, is general superintendent and director of laboratories of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. He is- a representative of the view that the only known cure for cancer is 'by operation. The subjects of Dr. Bell's action were an article by Dr. Bashford in the British Medical Journal, and the editorial comment thereon. The article contained the following passages:—

I have good reason for believing that to-day in London and elsewhere throughout the country numbers of the medical profession, trading as cancer curers, knowingly and deliberately trade upon the anxiety and credulity of the public in all that pertains to the etiology and treatment of cancer. There is overwhelming evidence that Dr. Bell, formerly of Glasgow, is the modern representative in London of some some of the practices referred to in the extract I quoted from Sir Spencer Wells.

The editorial note ran: Dr. Bashford's paper was the most damning exposure of the vilest and most cruel form of quackery that has appeared since Sir Spencer Wells wrote and Cancer Cures."

Dr. Bashford was recalled, and was reminded of his statement that 30,000 persons died of cancer every year in Japan. "You said they were mainiy rice-eaters," proceeded his Lordship, "fhave received a letter from a gentleman who is apparently a considerable authority, who states that Japanese are largely fisheaters and rarely rice-eaters." Dr. Bashford said he gained his information from Japanese gentlemen. His Lordship.- Are you able to say whether they are large rice-eaters or large fish-eaters?—l understand they are rice-eaters. I don't deny that they eat fish.

Why didn't you mention fish before?— I didn't know.

Mr. Duke, K.C. for the deefnce, said it might he that the plaintiff was on the right track. It might be that he had eased the sufferings and lengthened the days of people doomed by cancer. They were 'beneficial acts, but they did not warrant the professions which'the plaintiff made He submitted that a man was not guilty of dishonest criticism when lie said he regarded the plaintiff's professions as the exploitation of the dread •and horror of cancer for the purpose of gain. The Lord Chief Justice, in his summing up, said it had again and again been argued that Dr. Eashford was honest. That was not the sole question. Tf that gentleman has described Dr. Bell's ac-> tions as quackery and the jury deaided that what he had said was not fair comment, although he believed what he j wrote, it was nevertheless a libel. "It | would be a lamentable thing if any attempt or research to And to cure for this, scourge should be cheeked by unjust criticism and comment."

After a short absence the jury return ed their verdict, and his Lordship entered judgment accordingly, with costs.