[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I have read Dr.
Griffiths' defence of the action of the G.M.C. in Dr. Axham's case, and! trust you, Sir, will permit me to make a few comments upon it.
First of all I should like to remind Dr. Griffiths that when the Medical Act of 1858 was framed the boon of chloroform did not exist, so the Act could not have included a 'clause making it penal for iimeclleal man if he Wok pitir. titian a Poor sufferer who.' was abont to undergoa painful -operation by a highly competent man, who on nanny occiisions had succeeded in giving complete relief where surgery had failed.
Is it not incumbent upon every man to relieve suffering whatever social or professional position he may occupy ? Dr. Axham was only acting in conformity with the tenets embodied in the Medical Oath, which he signed before re- - ceiving his diploma. To condemn a man for doing a hUmane act was surely never contemplated by the framers of the Medical Act.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
