Lectures on topics connected with medical jurisprudence delivered before the medical department of the University of Vermont / by E.J. Phelps, April, 1881 ; reported stenographically by Sumner Gleason and Chas. H. Nichols, and printed for the use of the medical class.

  • Phelps, Edward John, 1822-1900.
Date:
1881
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Lectures on topics connected with medical jurisprudence delivered before the medical department of the University of Vermont / by E.J. Phelps, April, 1881 ; reported stenographically by Sumner Gleason and Chas. H. Nichols, and printed for the use of the medical class. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library at Yale University, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library at Yale University.

    22/112 (page 16)
    where his own testimony is opposed and in danger of being overthrown by what he considers to be wrong, that he should have a feeling on the subject, and that the feeling should in- sensibly show itself. But it is this very feeling that requires to be suppressed in the witness, who goes on to the stand to present under oath the material for deciding difficult ques- tions, and on whom the responsibility for the truth is altogeth- er cast. He goes into court, not as the advocate, charged with the interests of one side, but as the judge goes, bound to deal impartially with both sides. I hope to see the day when the selection of medical experts will be made by the court and not by the parties ; so that such witnesses will be brought in, not on one side or the other, but rather like an ar- bitrator or a referee, chosen for both sides, and equally the representative of both. But as the law is, and always has been, the party who desires to use the testimony of a medical expert, selects and examines him. There are two sufficient reasons why at any effort, and as I have said, it costs an effort, this bias should be avoided. The first is, that it will invariably color the testimony given. It is not hi the power of the human mind that it should be otherwise. You may swear to a statement, but you can never safely swear to an argument. The moment you charge your- self with the presentation of one side of a question, your pre- sentation becomes an argument ; and the very essence of an argument is, that it is upon one side. There may be an im- partial presentation of both sides, but when you begin to sus- tain your own opinion against an adversary, you enter upon an argument ; and such testimony will be inevitably colored. A little color sometimes goes a great, way in a tribunal not competent to criticize statements of that kind, or to weigh them as a physician would, and insensibly the statement be- comes stronger than it should be. Another sufficient reason against bias in the witness, is that whether the testimony is actually influenced or not, the