Illustrations of medical evidence and trial by jury in Scotland.

Date:
1855
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Illustrations of medical evidence and trial by jury in Scotland. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    55/66 (page 53)
    / was it. of the least consequence to the Sheriff or to the Procurator- Fiscal whether there was a fracture of the tibia or the fibula, or whether both of these bones were broken ? If there was danger in the opinion of the house-surgeon and Mr Gflover, that was quite sufficient. No careful inspection of the limb was necessary for that purpose, and none accordingly 'was made. Not only was it stated that this you must hold to be false till the contrary is proved to be true, he undertakes to prove the accusation to be true ; for in the second issue he says—“ Whether the pursuer granted a certificate on or before the said 21st March 1853, in which he certified, on soul and conscience, that he had examined a patient whom, in point of fact, he had never examined.” Now certainly Mr Macfarlan<8 went too far when he said that implied that he had never seen the patient. The letter and everything else refers to Mr Glover’s visit to the In- firmarv. Not only did he examine toe patient so far as he thought necessary for the purpose of that visit, before Dr Dobie came, but what Mr Glover seemed to forget Dr Dobie said, he went over the same symptoms with him—examined the tongue, felt the pulse, ob¬ served the breathing, and wished to look under the bed-clothes, saying, at the same time, “ I suppose there is not much to be seen here,” or ^ nothing to be seen here,” and of course very little could be seen, unless the splints and bandages were taken off. And, therefore, in the matter of the fracture, Mr Glover went upon what was quite sufficient for his purpose—the information that lie had re¬ ceived. But the defender undertakes to prove that he had never examined that patient. Looking to the object of that certificate, and the statements made in it, you will ask yourselves what other examination could have or ought to have been made. The inspec¬ tion of the limb not only Mr Glover does not pretend to have made, but Mr Syme says that that would have been most improper. It was not necessary to the ascertaining of danger. Other symptoms might prove that, or be thought to prove that, in the mind of Mr Gloverj whether he was right in this, is another question. The question here is, whether he made such an examination as he thought suffi¬ cient. Mr Syme thought little of the fever, and he appears to have thought little of the state of the case. Very likely Mr Glover thought a great deal more of them, especially from the question which he was going to answer—viz., Ought an examination to take place, especially when he had communicated to him the opinion of Dr Dobie, that amputation was under consideration % He did not D