MEDICAL ETIQUETTE.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 July 1916, Page 9

MEDICAL ETIQUETTE.

FATHER BERATES A DOCTOR. A of peculiar public interest, in that it involved a definition of medical etiquette in the matter of answering urgent calls at night, came before Mr. F. V. Fraser, S.M., at Auckland last week, when Alexander Burns, a Remuera resident, was charged that, on June 24 he assaulted Dr. Cawkwell,'the information being privately laid by-the doctor. CALL IN THE NIGHT. Dr. Cawkwell stated that about midnight on Saturday, June 23, he was knocked up by someone who came on his verandah and requested him to attend a child that was very ill. He enquired if any other doctor had been in attendance, and was told that Dr. Dudley had, but that the caller had tried to knock Dr. Dudley up and had failed to get any response. Witness replied that he could not interfere with another doctor's patient, and advised the caller to try Dr. Dudley again, as that doctor's house was not very far away, and handy to Mr. Bums' house, wihere the sick child was. The caller said the child wa s very ill, but did not say it was dying. BEREAVED FATHER'S ANGER. Between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. the following day (Sunday) the defendant called at witness's place, and said to witness: "My child has died, and I hold you responsible for its death." Witness replied that Dr. Dudley was the man's doctor, and defendant replied that Dr. Dudley had said that if witness had answered the call when he was sent for the child's' life would have been saved. With that he assaulted witness by catching hold of him and trying to drag him outside, calling his a cur, a dirty swine, a hound, and a murderer. Defendant said he would murder witness when he got him outside. Just then the housekeeper came and intervened, and defendant retired. Witness's wife, who had just got home from hospital, heard the disturbance, and had been unwell since then.

Mr. Hackett (for defendant): Do you say in cases of emergency you can't interfere with another doctor's patients? Is that the creed to which the honorable doctors of this town subscribe?—l say there is no legal obligation on me to attend.

Do you rely in this case on the legal obligations? In a case of life and death?

His Worship: I don't think you are quite fair in putting an extreme case to him as applying to <his case. In the extreme case there is a strong moral obligation. In reply to Mr. Hackett witness declared absolutely that die was not told that the child was dying. Mary Dobbie, the housekeeper, corroborated the previous /fitness respecting the defendant using the words murderer, etc., and catching hold of the doctor. He also said he hoped if the doctor had any children they might never have to rely, in need, on a cur like the doctor.

THE FATHER'S VERSION. Alexander Burns, the defendant, stated that his little boy became ill on Friday, and Dr. Dudley was called in, but did not indicate that the illness was serious. On the Saturday night the child became bad, and two neighbours were called in, and a neighbor's son was sent for Dr. Dudley. The messenger returned, and said he could not get anyone to hear at Dr. Dudley's house. He was gent for Dr. Cawkwell, but returned without a doctor. Then witness himself went for Dr. Dudley and eventually get him. He got Dr. Dudley at 12.80 a.m., about an hour and a half after Dr. Cawkwell had been 6alled. The boy became unconscious two minutes before Dr. Dudley arrived, and the doctor stated that he could not do anything, but that he might have been able to do something if the child had not been unconscious. WENT TO STATE HIS OPINION.

On the Sunday afternoon, when witness got out of a tram in company with his sister-in-law, his eye was attracted by Dr. Cawkwell's name, and he decided to call, and gave the doctor his opinion of him. Witness's sister-in-law went with him. When he told the doctor he wa s a nice specimen to absolutely decline to attend a child that was dying, the doctor replied that the matter had nothing to do with him. Provoked at what he considered a callous manner, witness started to give Dr. Cawkwell his opinion of him, including such words as cur, swine, hound, and mongrel, but not murderer. He added as he was a man of fourteen stone weight there was nothing to have prevented him from knocking the doctor about had that been his desire, but he only caught hold of him and talked to him.

Witness added, in fairnes* to Dr. Dudley, that the latter did hot say that the child's life would have been saved if Dr. Cawkwell had answered the call Dr. Dudley merely said that if he had got there before the child lost consciousness the little chap could have been given something to relieve the last few bad turns.

Stephen Bannoti, the messenger who called for Dr. Cawkwell, testified that he told the doctor he thought the case Was one of croup, and that he thought the child waß dying. A DOCTOR'S VIEW. Dr. Dudley, called at the request of his Worship, by Mr. Olster (for complain. ant), stated that he had made no statement that the ohild would have lived had it been earlier attended, but he heard some such statement made by one of the women at Mr. Burns' house. He did not think it would have made any difference had he arrived half an hour earlier, though attendance a few hours earlier might have made a difference.

His Worship: What is the custom respecting medical etiquette if a doctor is told a patient is very ill and the other doctor cannot be obtained?— The practice is to go. The trouble is that mistakes are likely to arise, because in nearly every case we are called at night in nine out of ten cases it is stated to be urgent when it is frequently not so. Consequently doctors are inclined to be suspicious of late calls.

HIS WORSHIP ON MEDICAL ETIQUETTE. .

His Worship stated that Dr. Dudley's evidence recalled a general complaint from doctors that people refrained from sending for a doctor till night-time, and very often said a case was urgent when it was not so. They gave medical men reason to be suspicious of night calls. In the present case there was really very little conflict of evidence. It was impossible to say from the evidence whether the message to the doctor was that the child was dying, or was "very ill." Even should it have been the latter, Dr. Dudley's rule would have been the wiser, and the more humane. Speaking as a layman, his Worship would have called it a case for Dr. Dudley's rule to operate, as there was a strong moral obligation to answer the call. Had the messenger not said he had been unable to get Dr.

'Dudley in this instance then the reply I by complainant would have been a proper one. Dr. Cawkwell declined to go, his [ Worship thought, as a result of having mistaken the rule of medical etiquette. The father believed tyiafc the child's life would have been sajved if medical attention had come sooner, and when he went to express his opinion to the doctor the fatter adopted what his Worship considered an entirely wrong attitude in the circumstances, which provoked the defendant. It was a pity the case had been brought to Court; one would have thought the doctor would have realised the father's feelings, even if he himself were unconscious of blame. The charge would be dismissed, with £3 16s costs against complainant.