Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 3 (of 3)Paris, John Ayrton
Science
Medical Jurisprudence, Volume 3 (of 3)
Paris, John Ayrton
Medical laws and legislation -- Great Britain
The daughter of the plaintiff swore, that the defendant _Stapleton_ was
first sent for to take off the bandage from the plaintiff’s leg; when he
came he declined to do it himself, and desired the other defendant
_Baker_ might be called in to assist; when _Baker_ came he sent for the
machine that was mentioned; plaintiff offered to give _Baker_ a guinea,
but _Stapleton_ advised him not to take it then, but said they might be
paid all together when the business was done; that the third time the
defendants came to the plaintiff, _Baker_ took up the plaintiff’s foot
in both his hands and nodded to _Stapleton_, and then _Stapleton_ took
the plaintiff’s leg upon his knee, and the leg gave a crack when the
plaintiff cried out to them and said, “you have broke what nature had
formed;” _Baker_ then said to the plaintiff _You must go through the
operation of extension_, and _Stapleton_ said we have consulted and done
for the best.
Another surgeon was called and swore, that in cases of crooked legs
after they have been set, the way of making them straight is by
compression and not by extension, and said he had not the least idea of
the instrument spoken of for extension; he gave _Baker_ a good
character, as having been the first surgeon of _St. Bartholomew’s_
hospital for twenty years, and said he had never known a case where the
callous had deossified.
Another surgeon was called who swore, that when the callous is formed to
any degree, it is difficult to break it, and the callous in this case
must have been formed, or it would not have given a crack, and said
extension was improper, and if the patient himself had asked him to do
it, he would have declined it, and if the callous had not been hard he
would not have done it without the consent of the plaintiff, that
compression was the proper way, and the instrument improper; he said the
defendant _Baker_ was eminent in his profession. Another surgeon was
called who swore, that if the plaintiff was capable of bearing his foot
upon the ground, he would not have disunited the callous if he had been
desired by him, but in no case whatever without consent of the patient;
if the callous was loose it was proper to make the extension to bring
the leg into a right line. A servant of the plaintiff swore the
plaintiff had put his foot upon the ground three or four weeks before
this was done.
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