OF THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS WHICH COMPLICATE GUNSHOT WOUNDS AND MAKE THEIR RESULTS UNCERTAIN,
Delirium Tremens is one of the commonest and must always be regarded as one of the most serious. It is well known to surgeons that a slight injury even, and often a severe one, is enough to provoke manifestations of this character in intemperate persons. The medico-legal question under these circumstances is this: Would the same amount of injury have been likely to cause death in a person of ordinary health and vigor? The law as applied to these cases has been stated by Lord Hale: “It is sufficient to prove that the death of a person was accelerated by the malicious acts of the person, although the former labored under a mental disease at the time of the act. The intent of the accused may often be judged by the character of the wound and the means of its infliction. Drunkenness of the victim admits of no excuse when his assailant is aware, or ought to have been aware, of the condition of his victim. It is held that the assailant ought to have known that violence of any kind to such a person is likely to be attended by dangerous results. It is known also that a wound which accelerates death causes death.” The commissioners who were appointed to define criminal law on the subject of homicide have thus expressed themselves: “Art. 3. It is homicide although the effect of the injury be merely to accelerate the death of one laboring under some previous injury or infirmity, for although if timely remedies or skilful treatment had been applied, death might have been prevented” (Taylor, p. 327).
Death from Surgical Operations Necessitated by Gunshot Wound.—The modern treatment of serious or so-called penetrating gunshot wounds where the cranium, thoracic viscera, or the abdominal viscera, especially the intestines, have been perforated one or more times, calls for surgical procedures which are of severity and danger in proportion to the gravity of the wound which necessitates them, and which, while they often save life, must necessarily often fail. Indeed, such operations may prove fatal upon the operating-table, i.e., patients may die before the conclusion of the operation. The question may, therefore, arise whether the person who inflicted the wound should be held responsible for his act, or whether by the intervention of the surgeon the responsibility may not at least be shifted from the shoulders of the accused. The law in this respect is explicit and regards such operation as the outcome of necessity and a legitimate part of treatment, so that if it be undertaken in good faith, with reasonable care and skill, the accused will be held responsible, be the result what it may. The question of necessity and the plan of operation are left to the judgment of the surgeon in charge. Considering the responsibility involved in such cases and the possibility of a suit being raised, we should always advise the operator to secure the counsel of other surgeons or practitioners in his vicinity. The verdict of such a counsel of talent will always stand. According to Lord Hale, when death takes place from an unskilful operation under such circumstances, and not from the wound, the responsibility of the prisoner naturally ceases, but the burden of proof that such has been unskilfully performed rests naturally with the defence. It is much better also in these cases that the primary responsibility be borne by one surgeon from the beginning of the case, though he may associate with himself as many others as he chooses, since the ends of justice have more than once been defeated by a division of such responsibilities. Should it be made to appear that the surgeon in charge has not availed himself of such means as are supposed to be in the hands of every competent practitioner and has neglected ordinary antiseptic precautions, it would not be difficult to show that the operation had been unskilfully performed, and the prisoner would naturally get the benefit of such defence. At the present date of writing there exists a large class of the profession who still continue to do surgery according to the views and practices of twenty or thirty years ago, and who, while perhaps carrying out some of the forms of antiseptic surgery, are still ignorant of its fundamental principles and consequently guilty of neglect, since there is now no reason why all should not practise them. The writer holds to the view that if it can be shown that these precautions were not adopted when others would have adopted them, it constitutes criminal neglect.
On the other hand, circumstances may arise where a simple or a more serious operation would have saved life, as, for instance, in cases of hemorrhage, and where a surgeon from timidity or carelessness has failed to take the necessary steps. Such neglect as this should inure to the benefit of the accused, but when at any time it can be shown that the possible benefits of operation have been offered to the deceased before his death and have been declined, the surgeon at least is relieved of all further responsibility. Among the dangers of operations under these circumstances are of course to be reckoned those pertaining to the use of anæsthetics. The surgeon in charge, however, is responsible for the selection of his assistants, at least when assistants are at hand, and must be regarded as equally competent in this as in other features of the operation; and even though the patient die from collapse or the anæsthetic, the burden of proof must rest with the defence to show that it had been unskilfully administered.
Note.—The assistance which the microscope may afford in the procurement of evidence in cases of gunshot wound is beautifully illustrated in the expert testimony reported by Dr. James, of St. Louis, in the presidential address before the American Society of Microscopists, in Washington, August, 1891, printed in Vol. XIII. of its Transactions. It occurred in St. Louis, in the case of The People v. Vail, who had a pistol in his pocket at the instant when his wife fell from a wagon against him, knocking him, as he claimed, against the wheel of the wagon, the pistol being discharged by accident. By a minute study of the fibres of the various textures making up his overcoat and of the effect of the explosion of powder upon textile fabrics almost in contact with it, he was enabled to establish the accident and secure the acquittal of the accused.
DEATH
BY HEAT AND COLD,
INCLUDING