Report on a case of railway injury / by Willoughby Francis Wade.

  • Wade, Willoughby Francis, 1827-1906.
Date:
1870
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report on a case of railway injury / by Willoughby Francis Wade. 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.

    4/12 (page 2)
    those proofs which are more and those whicli are less cogent; that we should have both the facts and the arguments not hazily adum- brated, but clearly and distinctly in our minds. This I have found medical witnesses often fail to achieve. But with far greater frequency they omit another duty of equal, perhaps greater, importance; namely, to ascertain and impartially weigh those facts and arguments which tell against their own opinion. These disputed cases are never altogether one-sided. We do not perform our duty to ourselves, and we omit the far higher duty of doing justice, unless before even forming an opinion, we have given due consideration to all the elements of the case. We do not perform our duty to our employers unless after having adopted an opinion we seriously reflect upon the best method of supporting it. This includes the best method of answering ob- jections. Were these principles more constantly recognised, we should avoid a fertile source of opprobrium. I do not admit that there exists, except in rare cases, that kind of partisanship on the part of medical witnesses which is sometimes alleged, and more fre- quently insinuated. I do admit that in common with all man- kind a medical witness having enunciated an opinion is prone to adhere to it. The fact that he does so is, I submit, no jiroof that he has formed it corru])tly or even unadvisedly. The way in which he supports it, the style in which he meets hostile criticism is, when these are unseemly, the result, in the vast jnajority of cases, of what may be indifferently termed comparative ignorance or one-sided knowledge. Satisfied, and it is here assumed justly satisfied, of the correctness of his opinion, he has failed to w'eigh beforehand facts which may be inconsistent, without being irreconcileable with that opinion. The following is an illustration of the truth of this theory. I was once engaged to assist the counsel of a prisoner, who was being tried for murder, in the cross-examination of the medical witnesses. These gentlemen had made up their minds that a murder had been committed, and that the prisoner was the murderer. I have never seen opinions adhered to with greater tenacity. In spite of over- whelming authorities quoted against them, they would not admit any anatomical, ])hysiological, or surgical dictum which seemed even remotely against the opinion they had, in perfect good faith, erro- neously formed. The jury without hesitation brought in a verdict of “Not guilty.” It is unnecessary to enlarge upon this, there is such an obvious'absence of the motives sometimes insinuated against us, and, indeed, no motive is reasonably conceivable but the one I have suggested. Facts have come to my knowledge which show that even those who have been frequently concerned in medico-legal inquiries may fail to appreciate the importance, or rather the necessity of understanding