The Law and Medical MenRogers, R. Vashon (Robert Vashon)
History
The Law and Medical Men
Rogers, R. Vashon (Robert Vashon)
Medical laws and legislation
What the law deems gross negligence has been thus defined in a case
where a “Herbalist” was on trial for manslaughter, for the death of a
patient through an overdose of colchium seeds and brandy for a cold.
“Gross negligence might be of two kinds; in one sense, where a man, for
instance, went hunting, and neglected his patient, |88| who died in
consequence. Another sort of gross negligence consisted in rashness,
where a person was not sufficiently skilled in dealing with dangerous
medicines which should be carefully used, of the properties of which he
was ignorant, or how to administer a proper dose. A person who, with
ignorant rashness, and without skill in his profession, used such a
dangerous medicine, acted with gross negligence. It was not, however,
every slip that a man might make that rendered him liable to a criminal
investigation. It must be a substantial thing. If a man knew that he
was using medicines beyond his knowledge and was meddling with things
above his reach, that was culpable rashness. Negligence might consist
in using medicines in the use of which care was required, and of the
properties of which the person using them was ignorant. A person who so
took a leap in the dark in the administration of medicines, was guilty
of gross negligence. If a man was wounded and another man applied to
his wound sulphuric acid, or something which was of a dangerous nature,
and ought not to be applied, and which led to fatal results, then the
person who applied this remedy would be answerable, and not the person
who inflicted the wound, because a new cause had supervened. But, if
the person who dressed the wound applied a proper remedy, then, if
a fatal result ensued, he who inflicted the wound remained liable.”
In these words Willes, J., charged the jury, and they, after a long
deliberation, brought in a verdict of “not guilty” [215]. And in the
very recent case of _State_ v. _Hardister_ [216], it was held that a
physician is criminally liable for his gross ignorance causing the
death of his patient, but not for a mere mistake of judgment.
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