Truth : a libel by law : the evidence of Sir J.Y. Simpson, bart., M.D., and others, in the case of Sharp versus Wilson, with diagrams and correspondence / by James Wilson.

  • Wilson, James, L.F.P.S.
Date:
1869
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Truth : a libel by law : the evidence of Sir J.Y. Simpson, bart., M.D., and others, in the case of Sharp versus Wilson, with diagrams and correspondence / by James Wilson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    140/152 (page 126)
    Carmichael or any other medical man, save the pursuer was m attendance. The pursuer was allowed to do as he pleased IVIrs Man- never rose'ofi' her bed after delivery, and she and her mutilated mfant sleep in the old churchyard of CuUen, In the case of Mrs Wilson, the pursuer was the attendant • he succeeded m dehvermg with the forceps. The permeum Avas ruptured, and she was treated in Edinburgh for the rup- ture, being duly cautioned by the pursuer to keep the nature of the injury she had received a profound secret from her rela- tives in Cullen. _ To the general non-professional, as well as to the profes- sional reader, it may not be out of place to review, in a few words,_ the finduig of the Lords of Session. Without layiag my opinion open to the charge of personal pique or private disappointment, I venture on the following brief critique of then- Lordships' finding, in a style which cannot fail of being understood by all Avho take the trouble of reading the evi- dence. Then- Lordships seem to have been of opinion that, in a case where the evidence was conflictmg, the judgment should be in favour of the party who could bring forward witnesses best known ha the scientific world. The evidence of. Su- James Y. Simpson would no doubt Aveigh in their estimation against half-a-dozen others, although they might be men whose reputation extended far beyond the chcle of then- immediate practice. Dr Chi-istie, of Aberdeen, Dr Paterson, of Glasgow, and Dr Bell of Edinbmgh, possess a reputation beyond the towns in which they reside, yet then* evidence is entirely set aside by the Lords of Session the same as although it had never been given; and the pur- suer receives all the benefit that belongs to doubt, m a Avay which it is impossible to accotmt for by the ordinary rules of judicial procedure. The pursuer, if he failed in provuig that he was a slrilful practitioner, one would haA'-e thought he would have failed in estabHshiag a claim for damages; but the collective wisdom of the Supreme Court has decided otherAvise. Dr Sharp, whose midwifery practice is at least doubtful, is pronounced by the Lords of Session to be above criticism. His practice may still deserve the condemnation of men eminent in the profession, but still he has the poAverfiil protection of law. Human life is of no account when weighed in the balance against the reputation of a M.R.C.S.E. The pursuer, notAvithstanding the solemn responsibilities attached to Inl) profession, must not be injured, even although human life hangs in the balance. Bm-ke, in his celebrated speech on