Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1Witthaus, R. A. (Rudolph August)
Science
Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1
Witthaus, R. A. (Rudolph August)
Medical jurisprudence; Poisons; Toxicology
In some States evidence of the general reputation of the defendant for
skilfulness or the contrary is held admissible. In other States such
evidence is held inadmissible (see Vol. XIV., Am. and Eng. Encyclopædia
of Law, p. 83, and cases collected in Note 6).
=Contributory Negligence.=—In conclusion it should be stated that
the patient is bound to follow obediently all proper directions given
him by his physician or surgeon, as to his diet, mode of life, time
of taking and quantity of medicine to be taken, or the care of a
diseased or injured member. Any disobedience of such directions which
contributes to prevent a recovery will bar him from his right of action
for malpractice, even though the medical man may have been somewhat
negligent. In short, the same rule as to contributory negligence
applies in this as in any other case of negligence. This principle has
been so long and so well settled that citation of authority in support
of it is unnecessary.
THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
CONCERNING
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS
BETWEEN
PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT.
BY
CHARLES A. BOSTON,
_Counsellor-at-Law, of the New York City Bar_.
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT.
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.
CONFIDENTIAL communications between physician and patient not
infrequently may relate to matters that are the subjects of inquiry
before judicial tribunals. When these communications are by law
excluded from disclosure in evidence, they are termed _privileged_
communications. When such a disclosure is forbidden it is upon grounds
of public policy,[207] “because greater mischiefs would probably result
from requiring or permitting its admission, than from wholly rejecting
it.”
COMMON LAW.
The common law required an inviolable secrecy to be observed by
attorneys with reference to the communications which they had received
from their clients.[208] But writers upon the law of evidence state
that under the English rule protection from disclosure in evidence in a
court of justice was not extended to communications between a medical
man and his patient.[209]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account