787

and drawings by Sir Charles Bell; there were some very

interesting microscopic sections of yeast tumours and someshowing mycosis of the lung. Two species of filaria-namely,!perstans and nocturna-were also shown. Messrs. Swift andSon showed many microscopes and microscopic preparations,sand surgical and scientific instruments were exhibited in the’dissecting-room by Messrs. Allen and Hanbury, Mr. C.

Baker, Messrs. Curry and Paxton, Messrs. Krohne and

-Sesemann, and Messrs. Maw, Son, and Thompson. In the

physiological laboratory Mr. Somerville Hastings gave a,demonstration of the action of the auriculo-ventricular valvesin the heart of the ox, and Dr. J. J. Pringle exhibited manystriking water-colour drawings of rare skin diseases. In the- entrance hall were to be seen the skeletons of the originalsnot Landseer’s " Dignity and Impudence." The band of the

Royal Artillery performed a charming selection of music in’>the museum during the evening.

THE PETROLEUM BILL.

THIS Bill, in which Mr. Harold J. Reckitt sought to raisethe flash-point of oil for lighting purposes from 73° to 100° F.,was rejected on a division on the second reading in the’House of Commons last Wednesday by a majority of 85, the

figures being 159 for and 244 against. We have throughoutentertained doubt whether the Government would be led,in view of the recommendation in favour of raising theifiash-point being sustained by so narrow a majorityof the Petroleum Committee, to legislate in this direc-tion. Interest will now turn on the proposals whichthe Government will make in their Bill which Mr. Jesse

4ollings has promised to introduce shortly. We are entirelywith those who are studying the question solely from thepoint of view of public protection, and trust that whatevermeasure may be proposed it will be one calculated to protectlife and limb.

____

WE are informed that Dr. Cnrnow, Dr. John Anderson,C.I.E., and Mr. G. R. Turner, have signed a joint letterwesigning their posts as physicians and surgeon, respectively,o the Seamen’s Hospital Society, but offering to continuethe performance of their duties until their successors are

.appointed. Mr. DonaldGunn, the ophthalmic surgeon, has.also resigned his post. We shall refer next week to the- circumstances which have thus left the -Z)/’<MMOM7Seamen’s Hospital, Greenwich, without any honorarymedical staff.

___

A COURSE of lectures on Diseases of Tropical Climates willbe delivered by Dr. Patrick Manson in the Medical Schoolof St. George’s Hospital on Tuesday, May 16th, and everysucceeding Friday and Tuesday till July 18th, at 5 P.M. eachday. For information with regard to the course applicationshould be made to the Dean of Medical School.

SIR T. NAGHTEN FITZGERALD, F.R.C.S.Irel., who hasbeen elected president of the Medical Society of Victoria forthe ensuing year, is an Irishman who was born in Dublin<64 years ago. He is the senior surgeon to the Melbourne

Hospital in Victoria and was knighted in 1897.

WE understand that the Society of Apothecaries of Londonintend to have the question, temporarily decided by the caseof "Hunter v. Clare," as to the right of a Licentiate of the,Society to style himself " physician," reopened at an early.date.

____

THE annual meeting of the Asylum Workers’ Associationwill take place on Monday, March 27th, at 3.30 P.M., under’the presidency of Sir J. Crichton Browne, M.D. Edin.,F.R.S., at 11, Chandos-street, W.

DR. THOMAS BARLOW has been appointed to fill the

vacancy in the body of the University of London Commis-sioners caused by the resignation of Sir William Roberts,M.D. Lond.

___

WE regret sincerely to learn of the death of Major James W.Evans, I.M.S., Professor of Pathology in Calcutta MedicalCollege, from plague.

THE LAW IN REGARD TO THE PROFES-SIONAL SECRECY OF MEDICAL

PRACTITIONERS.

THE following is the memorandum on this subject pre-pared by Mr. Muir Mackenzie at the request of the Presidentof the General Medical Council with the concurrence of theExecutive Committee for transmission through the HomeSecretary to the Russian Ambassador who had asked forinformation for the use of his Government.MEMORANDUM ON THE LAW OF THE OBLIGATION OF MEDICAL

PRACTITIONERS WITH REGARD TO PROFESSIONAL SECRECY.There are two aspects of the question of professional secrecy of

medical practitioners-namely, first, whether a medical man can bemade to divulge professional confidences in a court of law and,secondly, whether he may under any circumstances be permitted todivulge professional confidences in the intercourse of daily life.

(1) As regards the first question it is settled law that a medical mancannot claim the privilege, to which lawyers have been held to beentitlecl, of refusing to disclose matters communicated to them pro-fessionally. "A surgeon has no privilege where it is a material ques-tion in a civil or criminal cause to know whether parties were marriedor whether a child was born to say that his introduction to the partieswas in the course of his profession and in that way lie came to theknowledge of it. If a surgeon was voluntarily to reveal these secretsto be sure he would be guilty of a breach of honour and of greatindiscretion; but to give that information in a court of justice,which by the law of the land he is bound to do, will never

be imputed to him as any indiscretion whatever"-per LordMansfield in the Duchess of Kingston’s case, 20 S.T. p. 573. Thesame position is recognised by Buller, J., in Wilson ’!’. Rastall,4 T.R. p. 760, where he says ; "There are cases to which it ismuch to be lamented that the law of privilege is not extended ;those in which medical persons are obliged to disclose theinformation which they acquire by attending in their professionalcharacter, "; and similarly in a later case Lord Chancellor Brougham.after referring to a lawyer’s right of privilege, continues as follows :"The foundation of this rule is not difficult to discover; it is not (Mhas sometimes been said) on account of any particular importancewhich the law attributes to the business of legal professors or anyparticular disposition to afford them protection, though certainly itmay not be very easy to discover why a like privilege has been refusedto others, especially to medical advisers."-Greenhough u. Gaskell,1 M. &, K., p. 103.In Rex. v. Gibbons, 1 C.P.$7, where the prisoner was indicted for

the murder of her cliitd and a surgeon was called to prove confessionsmade to him, Park, J., overruled the objection that the witness was atthe time attending the prisoner in his capacity of surgeon, adding :" That is no sufficient reason to prevent a disclosure for the purpose ofjustice" ; and the same rule, "that there is no privilege of this descrip-tion in the case of a medical man," was repeated by Best, C.J., inBroad t’. Pitt 3 C.P. 518.From these cases it is clear that a medical man not only may,

but must, if necessary, violate professional confidences when answeringquestions material to an issue in a court of law.

2. Upon the second question there have been, not unnaturally, veryfew expressions of judicial opinion. It is admitted as a general principlethat a medical man should not disclose communications made to him inhis professional capacity, and in the Scotch Court of Session it has beenjudicially decided that " secrecy is an essential condition of thecontract between a medical man and his employers, and breachof secrecy affords a relevant ground for an action of damages." A.B.t’. C.D., 14 Dunlop, second series, 177. But upon this rule of thegeneral inviolability of professional confidences (outside a courtof law) the custom of the medical profession has engrafted.two exceptions, (1) in cases of criminal communications ; (2) whereviolation of secrecy is considered necessary for the protectionof wife or children (to which may be added a third exception,suggested by the court in A.B. v. C.D., cited above-viz., instancesconducive to the ends of science, though concealment ofindividuals should in such cases be secured). These two exceptionswere the subject of testimony given by eminent medical witnesses inthe case of Kitson t’. Playfair in 1896 as being generally recognisedamong medical men, but they are not judicially recognised as invari-able exceptions, as is shown by the summing-up of Sir H. Hawkins inthat case. The defendant pleaded privilege on the ground of thesecond of the above exceptions, and though the point was not decidedowing to the jury finding that the defendant had been influenced byan indirect motive the following passages are relevant to the matter ofthe obligation of secrecy among medical men. On medical evidenceas to professional privilege being given Sir H. Hawkins said : " Thfquestion of privilege is for me to decide, and, so far as it concerns thatquestion, I shall not be influenced by this evidence."&mdash;Htttes,March 26th, 1896.The following passage occurs in the report of the judge’s summing-

up : "The medical profession might, no doubt, discuss among them-selves rules for their own guidance ; but they had not power to impose

788

the rules they made upon the public. The medical men called saidthere were two exceptions to the rule imposing on them secrecy as toconfidences gained during professional attendance."The first was as to giving evidence in a court of law. His lordship

did not altogether agree with what they said as to that. It all dependedon the judge. The judge might in some cases refuse to commit amedical man for contempt in refusing to reveal confidences. Each casewould be governed by particular circumstances, and the ruling of thejudge would be the test."Secondly, that if there were circumstances from which theysupposed a crime was intended to be committed they would haveto inform the public prosecutor. If the doctor were called in merelyto attend a woman needing physical aid, his lordship doubted verymuch whether he would be justified in going to the police and saying,’I have been attending a woman who has been trying to procure anabortion.’ That would he a monstrous cruelty. Therefore to say therewas a general rule was going too far. There was a third exception-namely, a communication between the doctor and his wife or children.That required a great deal of limitation. For instance, there were casesin which the wife did not require protection, and where it would be awanton act to communicate a secret to her. That was a delicate ques-tion, but did not arise in the present case. The law as to words spokenon a privileged occasion was pretty well known."-Times, March 28th,1896.From this it seems clear that on the question of violation of pro-

fessional secrecy a medical man is in no more favoured position thananyone else, and further, that circumstances which according to thecustom of the medical profession might be deemed to exonerate himfrom the imputation of improper violation of secrecy might neverthelessin a court of law be deemed an insufficient justification.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE METRO-POLITAN WATER-SUPPLY.

WE continue our report of the fifty-seventh sitting-of theRoyal Commissioners.

In answer to the CHAIRMAN Sir FREDERICK DixON-HART-LAND said that the Conservators objected to any power beinggiven to the Local Government Board to "relax" (increase)the limits of the water companies’ intake from the Thames.They felt very strongly on this point because Parliament hadsettled the amount which the companies were to be allowedto draw after a most careful investigation both in theHouse and before committees. If a Minister had a rightat a moment’s notice to overthrow everything that Parliamenthad decided with regard to the amount of water which mightbe taken the Conservators would not know where they were. ’’,,They strongly objected to such a change. They had a dutyto fulfil with regard to the navigation and it was not right Ithat the Acts passed to enable them to carry out theseduties should be set aside for the sake of the water

companies.The CHAIRMAN asked whether the Conservators would be

satisfied if the discretionary power of allowing more waterto be taken should be vested in the Conservancy. Thewitness replied that if that were done he would state with

perfect candour what line the Conservators would take.

They would allow the water companies to take any amountof water in time of drought so long as it did not interferewith navigation.The CHAIRMAN said that it had been suggested that

instead of an enormous storage which in average years wouldbe useless it might be well in a year of emergency to vest insome body the discretion of saying : ’’ Very well, take morewater from the Thames; let the barges go aground for threemonths if you please." The witness pointed out that it wasnot only the upper river navigation which the Conservatorshad to think about: it was the interference with the naviga-tion of the lower part of the river which was the mostserious thing.The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the suggestion which he

had just made was the way in which the matter had been putto the Commissioners by the metropolitan water companies-namely, that it would be better in an exceptional period thata little inconvenience should be suffered below the last weirthan it would be to spend millions of money in makingreservoirs which would perhaps be only required once in halfa century. The witness pointed out that the Conservatorshad at the present time, as a matter of fact, discretionarypower to allow the water companies to draw more than theirstatutory limits. They were not compelled to ask for aninjunction against the companies if they drew more thanthey ought, and they had not done so as a matter of fact.To take an instance, they had not exercised their powersagainst the Southwark and Vauxhall Company for manyyears, although they were taking more than they were

allowed by Parliament. They exercised their powers whomthe Southwark and Vauxhall Company declined to make.provision for any storage at all.

Major-General SCOTT suggested that the demands of

navigation would have to give way if there was an absolutescarcity of water in London. The witness said that the

companies were bound to go somewhere else into their owndistricts as, for instance, the New River Company had been.It was not for the Thames Conservators to save them fromthe expense of making storage reservoirs ; it was the duty ofthe water companies to supply their customers and to makethe necessary arrangements for doing so.The CHAIRMAN suggested that the power of exemption

with regard to the statutory limits of the intake of a com-pany would only be extended in an extraordinary emergencylike that of last year. The witness replied that as far asthe Conservators were concerned they would not interferewith an over-draught from the Thames if the navigation wasnot thereby interfered with. At the present time barges hadsome difficulty in getting under Kew Bridge. It was neces-sary that a certain amount of water should pass down fromthe upper river to clear away the mud. This accumulationwas due to the fact that a sufficient amount of water had notrecently passed down. At least 200,000,000 gallons shouldbe allowed to pass daily over Teddington Weir.

In answer to Mr. DE BOCK PORTER, the witness said thatthe companies ought not to be allowed to take more than130,000,000 gallons from the Thames on any one day. Ifthe metropolitan water companies were ordered to givestorage for 90 days there was plenty of water in the Thamesto supply London for a hundred years to come. There wasno difficulty in having a sufficiency of water if sufficientstorage were provided. The Conservators simply wishedthat the water companies should be made to provide for adry season and there would then be no difficulty in thematter.

In answer to Sir JOHN DORINGTON the witness saidthat they did nota protest against 130,000,000 gallons beingtaken daily because the matter had been settled by Parlia-ment and they could not help themselves. At the presenttime, however, the position of the Conservators was this zthe metropolitan water companies had been permitted byActs of Parliament to take this amount and they did notwish to interfere with that arrangement because they wouldnot like to interfere with "vested rights."

In answer to Mr. DE BocK PORTER the witness said thatthe Conservators had not a sufficient amount of money attheir disposal to carry on all the work of dredging whichought to be done. If the upper channels were deepenedmore water would come down the river and there would beless difficulty in times of flood, and if more money could beallowed for dredging it would be of the greatest advantageto the river.

In answer to the CHAIRMAN the witness said that theyhad not lately met with much opposition from localauthorities with regard to their insistence on the preventionof pollution. Lord Valentia lately brought a deputation tomeet them and the amusing part of it was that Lord Valentiahimself represented Oxford and that a representative of aneighbouring authority complained chiefly that Oxfordpolluted the river and that his clients were not allowed to dothe same.lThe CHAIRMAN asked when were we to have salmon in the

Thames. The witness did not name a time, but he statedthat smelts now come up as far as Blackwall and that salmontrout are to be put into the river at Sunbury this year.

Sir EDWARD FRANKLAND in answer to the CHAIRMAN saidthat he obtained the water for his examinations from thefilter wells of the Chelsea, West Middlesex, Grand Junction,Southwark and Vauxhall, and Lambeth Companies. Thewitness handed in a diagram and in answer to the CHAIRMANhe said that there was a rise in the number of microbes infiltered water corresponding with the rise in the number ofmicrobes in the "raw" " water, but that this increase was

by no means uniform or equal-for instance, in January,1894, there was a great rise in the number of microbes in the" raw " water and only a slight rise in the number of thosein the filtered water, whereas in February, 1895, there wasa smaller rise in the number of microbes in "raw" waterbut a larger rise in the number of microbes in the filteredwater. The witness said that these anomalies were capableof a pretty feasible explanation. Different companies have

1 A report of this meeting appeared in THE LANCET of Feb. 18th, p. 459.