A text-book of medical jurisprudence and toxicology / by John Glaister.

  • John Glaister
Date:
1910
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: A text-book of medical jurisprudence and toxicology / by John Glaister. 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.

    74/824 (page 48)
    evidence that the defendant had made certain statements to the execu- tive officials of a club of which the plaintiff was medical officer with a salary of £360 per annum, in consequence of which plaintiff was dis- missed from the post. Mr Justice Lopez ruled on a point of law that it had not been proved that the defendant had slandered the plaintiff; _ and that, in regard to the communication made to the officials of the club, although proved, it was a privileged communication. It appeared in evidence that the statement in question consisted of replies to queries which were put to defendant by these officials. This ruling is quite in accordance with the following general de- finition of a privileged communication—^viz. that a communication made bona fide upon any subject matter in which the party communi- cating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, is privi- leged, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, although it contain incriminatory matter which, without the privilege, would be slanderous or actionable. ^ In the remarks of the judge on the general question of professional secrecy as interpreted by the evidence of medical witnesses called to speak upon this, several important dicta must be noted. For ex- ample, he said, It must be remembered that the medical profes- sion had no right to legislate on the matter [as to the rule of inviol- able secrecy]. They might make their own rules—and, he dare say, did to the best of their ability—for their guidance as professional men, but they could not impose upon the public their self-made laws as being binding upon them. The medical gentlemen called on behalf of Dr Playfair said that they were only rules by which they regulated their own conduct. They mentioned two exceptions. In the case of a witness being called into the witness-box in a court of justice, and asked to divulge a professional secret, they held that under those cir- cumstances they were bound to give utterance to it. He would not himself discuss that point, because he had a little doubt whether the rule could be stated so generally as that. Although the judge was the person who had to rule whether or not a witness was to answer a ques- tion—and if a witness did not answer according to that ruling he might be committed for contempt of court—yet one would suppose that a judge would exercise discretion in ordering a witness to answer or not. Having regard to a variety of circumstances, there might be some matters which the judge might think most unreasonable to be divulged by a professional man, and therefore he might refuse to permit it, and allow the witness to say, ' I refuse to answer.' Each case must be considered by its own particular circumstances, and by the ruling of the judge who happened to preside on the occasion. It must be taken for granted that the judge would decide according to law. It could not be presumed otherwise, as in that case the court's law would get into sad disorder. There was always a rule to set a judge right if he went wrong; on the occasion, however, on which he was ruling, his ruling would have to be taken as law. It was also said by the medical witnesses that if in the course of professional practice they came across a case which indicated either that a crime had been com- mitted, or was about to be committed, that under these circumstances 1 Glenn: Manual of Laws affecting Medical Men, p. 230.