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 Indiana, under a former law which protected matters _confided_, it
was said that the statute should be given a broader scope than the
word _confided_ in a strict sense imports, so as to cover matters
learned by observation and examination.[230] But, though the statute
in terms absolutely prohibits a disclosure, it has been said, in
Indiana, that it gives no right to the physician to refuse to testify
where the patient waives the privilege,[231] and that it creates
no absolute incompetency, because to hold otherwise would result in
obstructing justice without subserving the purpose of the statute.[232]
In Missouri, there is a dictum that the privilege should be carefully
limited to what the statute requires, not so much because it is in
derogation of the common law as because it is in exclusion of the best
evidence, on the ground of privilege;[233] but in this very case, the
real question was whether the word _oral_ should be construed into
the statute so as to exclude from its protection information acquired
by inspection and observation, and it was held that no such narrow
interpretation was proper. In a later case the narrowing dicta of
the foregoing opinion were disapproved,[234] and subsequently the
disposition to make a liberal construction was shown by the highest
court of the State, although a general rule of interpretation was not
announced.[235] In New York, the rule that a statute in derogation
of the common law is strictly construed does not apply to the Code
of Civil Procedure.[236] But before the enactment of this statutory
rule[237] there was a tendency to interpret liberally the law
prohibiting disclosures.[238] In Arkansas the tendency seems to be to
construe the law strictly.[239] The spirit of interpretation will be
more fully illustrated in the discussion of particular cases which
follows.
In New York it was claimed that the protection afforded by the statute
is nullified by the provision for the examination of a party before
trial,[240] but it was held that the statutes are consistent and the
physician cannot be made to disclose, though his patient may be.[241]
CLASSES OF ACTIONS.
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