Dr. Pavy has been foolish enough to write to the
Times of last Saturday that Sir William Gull, in his evidence in the Guy's Hospital case, " has cast what I consider an unwarrantable aspersion upon my professional capacity." ' Will you permit me," he continues, " through your columns, to call upon him to make a public retracta- tion, in default of which I shall refer the matter to the College of Physicians ?" Sir William Gall's reply on Thurs- day is complete. He bears cordial testimony to Dr. Pavy's high reputation, but adds,—" As what I stated was according to the conviction of my mind, and stated on oath, I am not able to retract a word, though I very deeply regret the necessity which obliged me to give expression to my opinion." The notion of calling upon the College of Physicians to take one of its members to task, because his opinion, given on oath in a Court of Justice, happened to throw doubts upon that of another of its members, is highly ludicrous, but it is very significant of the state of medical feeling just now at Guy's. The sprelaa injuria forme is responsible for a good deal of the unhappy bitterness imported by the Medical Staff into the practical settlement of a very simple matter. It was, no doubt, a great mistake not to take them formally into consultation on the new rules, of which the Treasurer, Mr. Lushington, has made so manly a defence, so far as there were any new rules. But it was a mistake which might have been easily remedied, if the Medical Staff had been willing to pass over it, and co-operate cordially in revising these rules with those who had made that slip.
Previous page
