- Email: [email protected]
Doctor Acquitted on Abortion Charges
1336
report was conveyed to the coroner in a secretary of the management committee. was perhaps rather terse. At all events,
letter from the This summary the coroner did them reprinted,
the full observations until he saw together with his own letter, in a local newspaper.2 The coroner thereupon wrote to the management committee complaining that they had not sought his permission to give his letter to the press. " Quite apart I should from breach of copyright," wrote the coroner, have thought that if you wished my letter published, you would at least have had the common courtesy to ask me first, or at the very least, inform me of your proposals." The secretary replied that the press had been present " as usual " at the meeting of the management committee. This provoked a lengthy reply from the coroner in which he said : " What I complain of is that when I write you a letter not
see
"
drawing attention to certain matters which seem to me to require further examination from a medical aspect, you take it upon yourself without any prior reference to me to have a copy made and pass it to the Press with the agenda of your committee. What right have you to publish ... correspondence without first obtaining the author’s consent ? To do so is an infririgement of copyright ..." The coroner’s claim that his letter was protected by issues. It is true that prima facie the author of any letter has the benefit of copyright since it is an " original literary work " ; the fact that the letter may be quite worthless as literature is irrelevant. But it is by no means certain that copyright can be claimed for a letter written to a public body such as a hospital management committee. Regional boards and management committees exercise their functions on behalf of the Minister of Health, and it may therefore be that in matters of copyright they have the privileges of a Government department. Even if a management committee does not have these privileges, there is a further consideration to be taken into account : it is customary (though not obligatory) for management committees to invite the press to their meetings, and it may follow from this that anyone who writes a letter to a management committee gives an implied licence to the committee to allow the press to have it with the agenda. In any event, it would surely be unfortunate if the advancement of purely technical claims to copyright were to discourage regional boards. and management committees from inviting the press to their meetings.
copyright raises important
Doctor Acquitted on Abortion Charges At the Old Bailey recently a 37-year-old doctor was acquitted on six charges of illegally using an instrument with intent to procure a miscarria,ge.3 In a statement to the police, the doctor is alleged to have said : " I have not made a business of this. My motives have been altruistic rather than selfish, but to some extent it has derived from the difficulty I have in supporting my family. I am confident that these women would not inform on me. I presume your informant is ..." One of the women concerned, Mrs. H, said that she saw the doctor at his surgery in 1953 when she was three months pregnant. The doctor asked her if she had brought any money. She gave him n5 and a further no when he had performed the operation. She had a miscarriage the following day. She could not remember telling the doctor that the only way out for her was to commit suicide, but she had contemplated suicide. Miss W, a medical student, said that after she became pregnant she made an appointment to see the doctor at his surgery. An operation was performed for which she paid ;E25. She said that she could not remember whether she had told the doctor that her mind had got into a state in which she could not work or study. At the time she was upset and depressed. Another woman, Mrs. W, said that the doctor performed an operation on her when she was four months pregnant, for which she paid :S25. She was not very well at the time. One of her troubles was that her boy, aged 4, was very difficult to manage, and she also had a baby six months old. 2. Herts
Advertiser, Nov. 18, 1955.
3. Kentish Independent, Dec. 2, 1955.
In his own evidence, the doctor said : "I formed the view in each of the cases before the court that it was necessary for the health, both physical and mental, of the patients that an operation should be performed." The doctor was asked by defending counsel whether he had ever done any of these operations where he felt it was merely a case of the girl or woman wishing to get rid of the baby, and for no medical reason. The doctor replied : ’’ There was alwayss a medical reason which satisfied me that there was a valid reason from the medical point of view.
After considering their verdict for two hours, the found the doctor " Not guilty."
jury
Wrong Finger Amputated Giving judgment for the plaintiff in an action for negligence against the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, Mr. Justice Stable suggested that there would be fewer actions for negligence against hospitals if patients were informed of what had happened.l "II have had reason," said his Lordship, " to deplore the number of actions which I feel are wholly ill-founded claims against surgeons and doctors for negligence. But neither the patient nor his relations really know what goes on inside the hospital. There cannot possibly be a bad mistake made which everyone in the hospital does not know about, and if the patient were informed it is likely that it would put a stop to the ill-founded claims. Otherwise the patient and his relations do not hear the facts until they are brought out in court." Mrs. Lily Patten, a factory operative, was injured when power press suddenly descended and caught her right hand. An orthopaedic surgeon at a hospital advised that part of the middle finger should be amputated. The operation was carried out by a house-surgeon, who by mistake removed the top of the little finger. It appears also that an operation for the suture of a severed tendon in the injured finger was performed too late and all three middle fingers were bent in towards the palm. Nineteen months after the accident the whole of the middle finger was amputated. Mrs. Patten sued her employers for negligence and breach of statutory duty in respect of the fencing of the press. She also sued the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, the orthopaedic surgeon, and the house-surgeon. The housesurgeon admitted liability and paid into court the sum of E500, but the board and the consultant denied liability. During the course of the hearing, however, the proceedings against the consultant were discontinued. In evidence, Mrs. Patten said that the house-surgeon had told her that the first operation was a " terrible mistake." She had another operation after which she was told that an attempt had been made to save her middle finger. Since then she had been unable to unclench the injured hand and had had to pay a series of visits to the hospital physiotherapy department. She could not use her hand, and since the accident she had had dizzy turns, blackouts, and spells of a
trembling. An independent
surgeon said that an exploratory operation should have been carried out to ascertain whether a tendon was divided when Mrs. Patten first arrived at the hospital. The doctor on the spot was in the best position to decide what should be done, but the casualty officer, being a young man, should have sought a senior’s advice. Giving judgment, Mr. Justice Stable said that the hospital board " are liable with the surgeon who made the grave blunder, for substantially the whole of the present condition of Mrs. Patten’s hand." He was surprised, and not a little shocked, that the board did not express great regret and accept full responsibility for the consequential damage. His Lordship awarded E2500 damages against the board, from which the £ 00 paid in by the house-surgeon would be deducted. Mrs. Patten also succeeded in her action against her employers, who were ordered to pay :E459 Is. in damages.
This case perhaps lends point to the correspondence in which contributors have suggested a standard system for the identification of fingers.2 Guardian, Nov. 26, 29, 30, 1955 ; Birmingham 26, 30, 1955. 2. Forbes, R. Lancet, Oct. 1, 1955, p. 721. French, A. Ibid, Oct. 8, 1955, p. 774. Loxton, G. E. Ibid. Sayle-Creer, W. Ibid, Oct. 15, 1955, p. 824. 1. Manchester Post, Nov.
"’.
report was conveyed to the coroner in a secretary of the management committee. was perhaps rather terse. At all events,
letter from the This summary the coroner did them reprinted,
the full observations until he saw together with his own letter, in a local newspaper.2 The coroner thereupon wrote to the management committee complaining that they had not sought his permission to give his letter to the press. " Quite apart I should from breach of copyright," wrote the coroner, have thought that if you wished my letter published, you would at least have had the common courtesy to ask me first, or at the very least, inform me of your proposals." The secretary replied that the press had been present " as usual " at the meeting of the management committee. This provoked a lengthy reply from the coroner in which he said : " What I complain of is that when I write you a letter not
see
"
drawing attention to certain matters which seem to me to require further examination from a medical aspect, you take it upon yourself without any prior reference to me to have a copy made and pass it to the Press with the agenda of your committee. What right have you to publish ... correspondence without first obtaining the author’s consent ? To do so is an infririgement of copyright ..." The coroner’s claim that his letter was protected by issues. It is true that prima facie the author of any letter has the benefit of copyright since it is an " original literary work " ; the fact that the letter may be quite worthless as literature is irrelevant. But it is by no means certain that copyright can be claimed for a letter written to a public body such as a hospital management committee. Regional boards and management committees exercise their functions on behalf of the Minister of Health, and it may therefore be that in matters of copyright they have the privileges of a Government department. Even if a management committee does not have these privileges, there is a further consideration to be taken into account : it is customary (though not obligatory) for management committees to invite the press to their meetings, and it may follow from this that anyone who writes a letter to a management committee gives an implied licence to the committee to allow the press to have it with the agenda. In any event, it would surely be unfortunate if the advancement of purely technical claims to copyright were to discourage regional boards. and management committees from inviting the press to their meetings.
copyright raises important
Doctor Acquitted on Abortion Charges At the Old Bailey recently a 37-year-old doctor was acquitted on six charges of illegally using an instrument with intent to procure a miscarria,ge.3 In a statement to the police, the doctor is alleged to have said : " I have not made a business of this. My motives have been altruistic rather than selfish, but to some extent it has derived from the difficulty I have in supporting my family. I am confident that these women would not inform on me. I presume your informant is ..." One of the women concerned, Mrs. H, said that she saw the doctor at his surgery in 1953 when she was three months pregnant. The doctor asked her if she had brought any money. She gave him n5 and a further no when he had performed the operation. She had a miscarriage the following day. She could not remember telling the doctor that the only way out for her was to commit suicide, but she had contemplated suicide. Miss W, a medical student, said that after she became pregnant she made an appointment to see the doctor at his surgery. An operation was performed for which she paid ;E25. She said that she could not remember whether she had told the doctor that her mind had got into a state in which she could not work or study. At the time she was upset and depressed. Another woman, Mrs. W, said that the doctor performed an operation on her when she was four months pregnant, for which she paid :S25. She was not very well at the time. One of her troubles was that her boy, aged 4, was very difficult to manage, and she also had a baby six months old. 2. Herts
Advertiser, Nov. 18, 1955.
3. Kentish Independent, Dec. 2, 1955.
In his own evidence, the doctor said : "I formed the view in each of the cases before the court that it was necessary for the health, both physical and mental, of the patients that an operation should be performed." The doctor was asked by defending counsel whether he had ever done any of these operations where he felt it was merely a case of the girl or woman wishing to get rid of the baby, and for no medical reason. The doctor replied : ’’ There was alwayss a medical reason which satisfied me that there was a valid reason from the medical point of view.
After considering their verdict for two hours, the found the doctor " Not guilty."
jury
Wrong Finger Amputated Giving judgment for the plaintiff in an action for negligence against the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, Mr. Justice Stable suggested that there would be fewer actions for negligence against hospitals if patients were informed of what had happened.l "II have had reason," said his Lordship, " to deplore the number of actions which I feel are wholly ill-founded claims against surgeons and doctors for negligence. But neither the patient nor his relations really know what goes on inside the hospital. There cannot possibly be a bad mistake made which everyone in the hospital does not know about, and if the patient were informed it is likely that it would put a stop to the ill-founded claims. Otherwise the patient and his relations do not hear the facts until they are brought out in court." Mrs. Lily Patten, a factory operative, was injured when power press suddenly descended and caught her right hand. An orthopaedic surgeon at a hospital advised that part of the middle finger should be amputated. The operation was carried out by a house-surgeon, who by mistake removed the top of the little finger. It appears also that an operation for the suture of a severed tendon in the injured finger was performed too late and all three middle fingers were bent in towards the palm. Nineteen months after the accident the whole of the middle finger was amputated. Mrs. Patten sued her employers for negligence and breach of statutory duty in respect of the fencing of the press. She also sued the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, the orthopaedic surgeon, and the house-surgeon. The housesurgeon admitted liability and paid into court the sum of E500, but the board and the consultant denied liability. During the course of the hearing, however, the proceedings against the consultant were discontinued. In evidence, Mrs. Patten said that the house-surgeon had told her that the first operation was a " terrible mistake." She had another operation after which she was told that an attempt had been made to save her middle finger. Since then she had been unable to unclench the injured hand and had had to pay a series of visits to the hospital physiotherapy department. She could not use her hand, and since the accident she had had dizzy turns, blackouts, and spells of a
trembling. An independent
surgeon said that an exploratory operation should have been carried out to ascertain whether a tendon was divided when Mrs. Patten first arrived at the hospital. The doctor on the spot was in the best position to decide what should be done, but the casualty officer, being a young man, should have sought a senior’s advice. Giving judgment, Mr. Justice Stable said that the hospital board " are liable with the surgeon who made the grave blunder, for substantially the whole of the present condition of Mrs. Patten’s hand." He was surprised, and not a little shocked, that the board did not express great regret and accept full responsibility for the consequential damage. His Lordship awarded E2500 damages against the board, from which the £ 00 paid in by the house-surgeon would be deducted. Mrs. Patten also succeeded in her action against her employers, who were ordered to pay :E459 Is. in damages.
This case perhaps lends point to the correspondence in which contributors have suggested a standard system for the identification of fingers.2 Guardian, Nov. 26, 29, 30, 1955 ; Birmingham 26, 30, 1955. 2. Forbes, R. Lancet, Oct. 1, 1955, p. 721. French, A. Ibid, Oct. 8, 1955, p. 774. Loxton, G. E. Ibid. Sayle-Creer, W. Ibid, Oct. 15, 1955, p. 824. 1. Manchester Post, Nov.
"’.