THE GRATITITDE OF A PATIENT. T HERE is a point of
view from which medical men appear an injured and unappreciated class. The public really does not do the profession justice. We deliberately shut our eyes to the romantic character of their pursuits. True it is that when we are sick we hang on the doctor's very words with abject sycophancy, but we do not think much of him when we are well again. He is an excellent fellow, most generous and patient, but his trade is, after all, a pottering, gossiping sort of affair, with nothing heroic about it. In the days of good Haroun Alraschid, when the King of China used to call on the chief physician to cure the lovely princess his daughter on pain of death in case of failure, things might have been different, but in these days the only danger a doctor runs is that of catching contagious diseases and epi- demics, and somehow doctors never do catch them. When an apothecary is regarded as a hero by his patient, that patient will have a chance of being similarly appreciated by his own valet de chambre. It is all very well to call this a senti- mental grievance, but we do not think so. If a soldier takes up a novel, he finds himself depicted as a man _ without fear, snatching reputation from the cannon's mouth. The clergyman is always a person with a pale intellectual brow, worn to a shadow by his holy zeal. The barrister is a man of preternatural acuteness, who obtains the most astonishing verdicts by a brilliant defiance of the whole law of evidence and all the forms of forensic procedure. But what novelist ever took a doctor for his hero ? We may be reminded of Dr. Thorne, but Mr. Trollops could make no more of him than an amiable unworldly old humourist, who did generous things so as to get no credit for them. Now, we main- tain that doctors do run very great risks. We say nothing of their being placed in close relations to fascinating persons of the softer sex and getting utterly married. This, perhaps, they share with the clergy. But they are exposed to much greater dangers than these. We know an eminent dentist who, being called in by an athletic patient, had scarcely— with the patient's full consent—fixed his forceps, when the patient bounded from the chair, thrust him to the other side of the room, and threatened to knock him down if he moved. Within the current year an eminent surgeon has not been saved by being a married man with a large family from an action for breach of promise, and was nearly com- pelled by his fair patient to commit bigamy against his will. And whatever may be said, to defend an action at law requires great courage. As we know from the proceedings of a notorious court-martial, it daunts a man who does not fear death. A gallant captain of light horse was willing to do anything which would force a gallant colonel to fight a duel with him except publish a libellous placard. And this is by no means strange. At a duel it is enough to have that species of courage which may be defined as the power of looking as if one was not afraid; but that is quite insufficient for a defend- ant at law. This highest courage—robur et ces triplex—has been manifested this week by two medical men, and it now becomes our duty to congratulate them and the public on their victory. Suet two years ago Mrs. Amelia Symm, a widow lady of independent fortune, lived in Oakley Square, Camden Town, with a Mrs. Hill, also apparently of independent fortune, a ferocious dog, and an imbecile brother, aged sixth variously described as being " almost as rational as a bedpost," " saucy when put out of his way," and" as tractable as a little spaniel." The lady at the head of this interesting menage, who was—to use her own expression—at the time without a servant, habitually cooked and slept in her parlour, and falling ill she called in a Mr. Andrews—one of the gentlemen for whom was reserved the glory of being a defendant in an action for the good of the medical profession. He found his patient "sick, rambling, and excited," and as on questioning her he found that she had been taking "a little sherry," he pru- dently remarked that " it did not agree with her, and she had better leave it off." When he next saw her he was induced by what he observed " to point out very distinctly the in- jurious tendency of drinking," because, and the reason is rather an odd one, "it is of no use arguing with a woman under such circumstances." Mrs. Symm, however, steadily maintained that she was a person of very abstemious habits, and usually confined herself to ginger wine. But we regret to say that her friends do not seem to have shared that opinion. Mrs. Hill stated, and her evidence is borne out by that of the landlord of the adjacent tavern, that the imbecile brother constantly bought for her intoxicating liquors. Mrs. Young, of Kentish Town, a friend, said that " it was the cursed drink." At last Dr. Frazer, a Fellow of the College of Physicians, was called in to consult with Mr. Andrews, and he, emulous of sharing the glory of his colleague, pronounced Mrs. Symm very drunk, and in danger of delirium tremens. Soon, what with the " sauci- ness" of the imbecile brother, the ferocity of the dog, and the violence of the patient, no one was willing to remain in the house but a Mrs. Taylor, who hired a nurse, and a man " accustomed to attend nervous patients." These persons certainly do seem to have put Mrs. Symm under restraint, for they would not let her have a knife to cut her throat, pulled her back when she tried to throw herself out of window, and what was still more insulting forcibly kept her even from ginger wine. At last, in spite, or in consequence, of this cruelty, Mrs. Symm recovered, and fled to Bath, leaving her house and furniture totally unprotected. There she called in another doctor, who, when summoned as a witness on her behalf, was obliged to admit that he at first suspected her of drinking, but that the symptoms might be the result of that vice or of travelling gout, an opinion controverted by many eminent members of the- profession. It was obvious, however, that Mrs. Symm was bound to clear her character and after an interval of eighteen months she brought an action against Drs. Frazer and 'Andrews. The nature of the evidence may be gathered from the bizarre character of the incidents we have narrated, and as it was abundantly clear from the evidence of the defendants, and of the nurse and keeper who had been placed in charge of the plaintiff, that the latter had not been hired by the defendants, but by Mrs. Taylor, and that the instructions given by the defendants were merely general iustructions, and not orders, Mrs. Symm failed in her action.
Now, it certainly can give no pleasure to any one to give unnecessary publicity to the failings of this unhappy person, but it must be observed that the exposure was of her own seeking. She brought this action. It was by her act that all this miserable story has been detailed for four mortal days in open court, and printed in the daily papers for the amusement of the world ; and she can scarcely now complain if people begin to discuss the issue which has been forced on them. Here arc two gentlemen obliged by a sense of professional duty to give their aid to every fellow-creature who requires. it. They find their patient in danger of delirium consequent on drink. It is not necessary to believe that the patient was a confirmed drunkard ; for if, as her witnesses declared, she was a person of abstemious habits, a comparatively slight excess might pro- duce extreme results. Let us suppose that, finding no one else willing to run the risk, they had put their patient under temporary restraint, just consider what is their reward ! Mr. Andrews asked for " about 51.," and his patient paid him 11. 17s. 6d. Dr. Frazer, who had been called up once "in the middle of a bitterly cold night, when it was raining in torrents," asked for three guineas. He got two. And each has to sustain an action which, as it is, will certainly cost them a good round sum over and above their taxed costs, and which, had they been unsuccessful, would have ruined them as professional men. The defendants in this case acted with so much prudence, and the persons who saw the plaintiff during her illness were so numerous, that the result of the action was scarcely ever in doubt; but it would be easy to conjecture a case in which a medical man man might have the greatest difficulty in proving how great had been the necessity under which he acted. We do not so much blame poor Mrs. Symm herself. She may have been unconscious of what took place during her delirium, and she has money, and will pay pretty smartly for her ingratitude and folly. But a very heavy responsibility rests on her adiisers, and especially on the person who got up the evidence. Counsel were actually instructed to open the case as one in which there had been an attempt to treat the plaintiff as a lunatic—and we do not hesitate to say that it looks very much like an action in which the horror of mad doctors, excited by a cause tried last spring, was very astutely traded on. The result is happily one on which the public may be con- gratulated. The summing up of the Chief Justice was even for him unusually vigorous and clear, and the medical profes- sion may rest assured that where they have clearly acted from upright motives and with reasonable care, their conduct will not be scrutinized by juries with any narrow or ungenerous scrutiny. A medical practitioner is entitled to put a patient under any restraint that is absolutely necessary for his personal safety. Of course he would be imprudent to act on this rule without at least the opinion of some one other member of the profession in support of his own ; and, gene- rally speaking, it is the duty of the patient's friends to take the responsibility on themselves. But where there are no friends at hand the doctor must often act for himself. He must, of course, take the consequences of any deficiency of professional skill, but where this can not be attributed to him, it would be a public misfortune if he were to be pre- vented from acting with promptitude and vigour. There is no body of men who, taken generally, discharge equally delicate duties with more fidelity, self-denial, and integrity ; and Drs. Andrews and Frazer may console themselves for the annoyance which this action has caused them by the assurance that the result has been to raise their characters in the eyes of all sensible people.
Previous page
