General paralysis : a critical review of the literature of the subject, to which is appended an analysis of the case of John S. Blackburn, in which insanity was alleged as a means of defense / by D.A. Morse.

  • Morse, D. A. (David Appleton), 1840-
Date:
[1874]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: General paralysis : a critical review of the literature of the subject, to which is appended an analysis of the case of John S. Blackburn, in which insanity was alleged as a means of defense / by D.A. Morse. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    7/124 (page 5)
    determine whether the action of jalap is modified by the ina- bility of the patient to distinguish by his moral sense, right from wrong, or to determine how much hydrate of chloral will outweigh an illusion or hallucination, before it produces sleep; but the necessity for therapeutical knowledge, medical skill, a clear diagnosis and rational prognosis, are rested upon the same foundations in pathology, whether mental phenomena are or are not interpreted by a predetermined, despotic legal criterion. The medical expert, or skilled witness, is called upon to hear facts stated by common witnesses, whose expressions are colored by passion, by prejudice, by sympathy, by public opinion, by family relationship and self-interest; or what is much more em- barrassing to him, well knowing that seldom are all the facts included, nor can they be as they would be viewed by a medi- cal man unless all the evidence be included, in many cases; the superficial knowledge of the medical witnesses having led to superficial examinations, all the essential facts not being drawn out, yet upon these is he required, a hypothetical case being pre- sented, the expert confined to the case constructed, without the evidence before him, without an examination of the defendant, to explain to a jury facts thus submitted, and is expected to sys- tematize and organize the chaos, however incomprehensible, im- perfect, or disjointed the hypothesis. The expert who has a well digested, well arranged knowledge of the subject, readily forms what to him is a satisfactory opin- ion, and if opportunity has been aiforded him to examine the defendant, has his opinion fully confirmed, not only by an ob- servation of conditions stated in evidence, but by seeing in the appearance, expression, demeanor or action of the patient what no witness can describe; yet however firmly he may be convinced of the correctness of his views, however clearly he may express them before the jury, however plausible they may seem to the