Sometimes, when there is perfect agreement between physicians in a consultation, the friends of the patient in some way get the impression that their views of the case are really different. They therefore sound the consulting physician on the subject. If he be an honorable man, he will at once say that they have agreed upon the course to be pursued, that he approves of it entirely, and that the attending physician will carry it into effect. But if he be unprincipled and intriguing, he will increase the impression, or even create it if it do not already exist, that there is disagreement; and he will do it so adroitly, that, while he will say nothing that is tangible, he will yet excite curiosity to know his views more fully, and feed the desire, which perhaps some partizan of his has awakened by his representations, that he shall take charge of the patient. If he thus gets possession of the case, as is often done, he will perhaps adopt the very course agreed upon in consultation with his brother physician, from whom he has filched it, and will alter only the _form_ of the medicines, so as to give the appearance of an actual change in the treatment. If after a consultation the patient improves, and the change is attributed by his friends to some particular remedy, credit is sometimes acquired by the dishonorable physician, by producing the impression that the remedy was suggested by himself. He makes perhaps no distinct assertion to that effect, especially if there be no ground for it, but in his conversations with the patient and his friends, he throws out such hints, and manifests so much interest and delight in speaking of the effects of the remedy, that the desired impression is made. When, on the other hand, a case terminates fatally, and, as often happens, the friends of the patient are disposed to find fault, and fix upon some remedy, or measure, as the chief cause of death, the intriguing practitioner seeks to make capital for himself by fastening the blame upon the physician who had the management of the case. He does this, not by any direct and open attack upon him, for then he would be exposed, but by slyly ministering to prejudices which he finds awakened against him, or by exciting such prejudices by insinuations, and remarks of so indefinite a character, that he is effectually screened from detection. Physicians who are called in consultation often have opportunities of defending the reputation of the attending physician from unjust attacks. And if they fail to make the defence when truth demands it, they may be quite as guilty as they would be if they volunteered the attack themselves, for they give to it their sanction; and yet, by doing no positive act, they shield themselves from blame. Lending a listening ear to aspersions upon the reputation of a medical brother, negative as the act is, is under some circumstances more base, and does more harm, than any open and bold attack.