Physician and patient

by Worthington Hooker

I have spoken of the interferences of the friends of physicians as occasioning jealousy and contention in the profession. It is proper to remark that such interferences ought to produce no ill feeling, unless they are prompted or justified by physicians themselves. No physician should be held responsible for all the injudicious or mischievous acts, which may be done by over-zealous patrons in his behalf. I would also remark in this connection, that the representations which are made by the friends of physicians in regard to the acts or sayings of their competitors, which are so apt to excite ill feeling, and foment so many quarrels, are very often to be received with many grains of allowance, and sometimes are wholly false.

When the medical man has arrived at that period of life, when, from the amount of his experience through a long practice, he will be called upon often by younger physicians in consultation, he may stand in a very enviable position. He may, I say, for it depends altogether upon those habits of intercourse which he has cultivated from the beginning. If he has been governed by wrong principles in his competition with his brethren, and has treated them in an ungentlemanly manner, mutual distrust and jealousy will mark the intercourse between him and younger physicians, and his situation will be far from being a desirable one. His standing with the community may give him the power of extracting from them the show of respect, and some of them may be attached to him as partizans, from mere motives of policy, but he cannot obtain from them a true respect and attachment. It is melancholy sometimes to see the intriguing practitioner, tottering on the brink of the grave, as busy as ever with his petty arts in filching whatever he can get of credit, or respect, or advantage, in his competition with his medical brethren.

If, on the other hand, the physician has been governed by honorable principles in his intercourse, when he acquires the eminence which the fact of having had a long and thorough experience gives him, the respect of his younger brethren is cheerfully accorded to him, and his declining years are made happy, being free from the strifes and jealousies which so often disgrace our profession.

In concluding this chapter I remark, that neither controversy in regard to opinions, nor competition in practice, necessarily implies contention. Though the controversy may be earnest, and the competition active, so long as the former is honest and candid, and the latter is honorable, they will not impair the harmony of the profession, and they will greatly promote the cause of truth, and the interests of medical science.

FOOTNOTES:

[36] I have placed in the Appendix the Code of Medical Ethics adopted by the American Medical Association, in which the reader will find concisely stated the rules and principles, which I have endeavored to illustrate in this and in some of the other chapters of this work.

CHAPTER XIII.
INTERFERENCE WITH PHYSICIANS.

Great latitude is allowed by the community in interfering with the practice of physicians. It is the object of this chapter to point out some of the ways in which this interference is exercised, and some of the injurious consequences which result from it.

Sometimes the confidence which one feels in his own physician leads him to put a low estimate upon the merits of other physicians and to attempt to destroy the hold which they have upon the confidence of their employers. Though this is very common, it is a most unjustifiable interference. While it is right that every one should be attached to the physician who has done well for him and his family in their sickness, this furnishes no ground for disparaging the physician to whom another is attached, perhaps for just as good reasons. He may sincerely believe that his friend has misplaced his confidence. But let him ask himself, am I sure—do I know, that it is so? Have I the data on which I can properly base such an opinion? Am I competent to judge of the comparative merits of the two physicians from observing their practice? If every one, who is tempted by a mere preference, or by pride of opinion to practice the interference referred to, should put to himself such questions as these, he would at least be less positive in his opinions, and less zealous in his efforts to unsettle the confidence of others in the physicians whom they employ.

Let me not be understood to mean that interference is proper in no case whatever. There are cases, in which it is not only allowable, but it is even an imperative duty. If you see a friend confiding in a quack, or an unskilful and ignorant practitioner, it is your duty to persuade him to relinquish such a misplaced confidence. But you must remember that the evidence upon which you act should be clear and satisfactory, and that no mere preference can justify such an interference, however strong that preference may be. So also, if you have a friend, who trusts his own life and that of his family in the hands of an intemperate practitioner, it is a case which calls loudly for the warnings of friendship. But in this case, you must have better evidence of the fact, upon which your advice is based, than mere suspicion, or vague reports.