The Ethics of Medical Homicide and MutilationO'Malley, Austin
Religion
The Ethics of Medical Homicide and Mutilation
O'Malley, Austin
Medical ethics
That doctrine about ovariotomy, if it includes double ovariotomy, is
disputed by physicians because, they say, such a woman is sterile
and she knowingly is going to deprive the man of his chances of
having children; secondly, a woman upon whom double ovariotomy
has been performed is almost always a neurasthenic invalid with a
marked tendency to insanity, and it is a grave injustice to any man
to saddle such a degenerate upon him for life by treachery. The
prospective injury to the man is so great that the physician should
first try to induce the woman to divulge her condition, and if she
does not, the physician at least _may_ divulge it.
Secondly, I deny most emphatically that any physician can tell that
a man who once has had syphilis is completely cured and is not a
source of infection. The facts I have cited in this chapter prove
conclusively that once a syphilitic always probably a syphilitic,
and the risk is always so great that the physician is obliged first
to insist that the man does not marry, and if the man persists the
physician may let the woman know. If preparations for the marriage
have been made publicly, the physician will, as a rule, for his pains
from the woman and her family get only a rebuff and the woman will
later get her syphilis more or less certainly. If the man is actively
infective the physician is bound to let the woman know, through
her confessor if no other way presents, provided the man cannot be
frightened out of his scoundrelism. If nothing else avails, the
physician would be justified in reporting such a man to the Board
of Health or the sanitary police. Barrett says the physician may be
excused from divulging that the man has infective syphilis if such a
revelation would cause the physician to lose the confidence of his
patients. It never does have such an effect, although physicians
constantly expose such cases in the interests of humanity. Because
a man who is apparently cured of syphilis may or may not infect the
woman, this doubt probably excuses the physician from the strict
obligation of divulging the condition, although he _may_ tell her if
he wishes to do so, _salvo meliore consilio_, as far as the release
from strict obligation to divulge is concerned.
If a patient with syphilis goes to a physician for the treatment
of some other physical disability, and the physician discovers the
syphilis in the course of the examination, this knowledge of the
syphilis would be a tacitly entrusted secret. Whether, however, a
secret that a man is actively infective or very probably infective is
entrusted either tacitly or directly, it is not a privileged secret
owing to the danger or certainty of extraordinary calamity to the
innocent second party.
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