The alleged malpractice suit : Thompson vs. Smith. Statement of experts and surgeons / Evidence reported by R.J. Hammond, reported for the Circuit court Nov. term, 1874, for Madison county, Iowa.

  • Smith, A. B. (Arthur B.)
Date:
1875
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The alleged malpractice suit : Thompson vs. Smith. Statement of experts and surgeons / Evidence reported by R.J. Hammond, reported for the Circuit court Nov. term, 1874, for Madison county, Iowa. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

    10/78
    complish this, there ought to l)e, we tliink. at least one well qiialilied medical expert allowed on every jnry to try a case of this kind. Jnrors are expected to know onlv what they hear in the testimony, and if a surgeon testiiies that the ^'' Ferivur aHic- ulates loith the Seajnila, '' That the Glenoid Legament is at- tached to this great Tuherosity, Thxit the Trape2ius nnuscle has nothing to do with the shoulder^ '' That there a,re no nerves involved hi disJocatio/i of the shoidder, consequently would produce no pain And tliis, as ridiciiious as it may be, is to be received by the jury as correct. I>ut a ])hvsician who understands the anatomy of the human system is better quali. tied to judge of the correctness (jf the testimony than one who has no knowledge of such cases. The case liere presented to the profession and the jniblic has been prosecuted witli the most rnaliciotis vindictiveness that has. perhaps, ever characterized a case of this kind. I will also say that tliere w^as never a case of malpractice in which there was as complete defence. And in no case was a physician or surgeon so well and folly sustained in his treatment of a case in every respect, not only by all the ex- perts, but by the unanim<.)us profession. Is this no surely a day of corruption when courts and juries can be controled by rings and cliques, or by an influence entirely foreign to the evidence. All who have examined the facts and the evidence, say without hesitancy, that this w^as a put up case; be this as it may, it is very certain that those who labored so hard for the prosecution utterly failed in the object of their prosecution. I think no one that knows the facts doubts but what the jury was tampered with by interested parties. The evidence and facts as given by disinterested ])arties is herewith submitted to the public. The experts, to M'hom I am indebted for &.perfect, ccmiplete and triumj^hant vindicatioii of the right, have not been selected as personal friends, but ha\'e been se- lected as surgeons of reputation, who stand at the liead of their profession in their respective localities, and we may say in this State, some of whom I had no personal accpiaintance with, and knew only by reputation. Koping the case- will receive an im- partial investigation and be a benefit to the medical profession In perpettiain ret niemoriarn, I submit. Respectfully, A. B. Smith, M. D. .