Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Illustrations of medical evidence and trial by jury in Scotland. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.
58/66 (page 54)
![know tliat ]\Ir Syme had decided against it; and, if he had been bi’ouglit into contact with Mr Syme, if ]\li* Syme had given him any information at all, it is extremely jn-obable that he might have given a different certificate from that which he gave, after seeing the boy himself, and after communicating with Dr Dobie. Now, what the certificate granted with that object implies, you will say; you will also say whether you think that any other inquiry need have been made for that purpose. The next point in this case arises after the letter of !Mr Glover, which has been read to you already. He writes this letter to the Lord Provost, seeing an attack in the Medical Journal, and he sends it to the Medical Journal io the Scotsman. He says, “I wish to explain this matter; I have committed no impropriety;” and he then details the examination which he made, stating expressly that he did not examine the limb, and never intended to examine the limb; and he states also, in explicit terms, the limited object of his exami- nation. He says, “ I had no intention of removing the splints and bandages, or doing anything in my examination which would, in the least degree, endanger or even retard the boy’s recoveiy; ” and, before that, he says, “ I turned down the bed-clothes and examined the boy, so far as to satisfy my mind that his life was in danger in consequence of the injury of his leg.” Now, this does not read as my friend Mr Patton seemed to ■ndsh it—“ I turned down the bed-clothes in order to satisfy myself that the leg was broken.” He knew that before; and, of course, what- ever danger there was, could only arise from that injury, which was patent and well known. That he did not take down the bed- clothes, or lift them up, to some extent, on that occasion, is certain, because it was proved by the boy himself, and by the other boy, Anderson. That he did not do so far enough to enable him to say that there was a fracture, without further information, is perfectly true; and whether he should have done it, in the absence of the nurse, is another question. But what is the statement made on this by Professor Syme ? He says, “ Mi- Glover has attempted to justify his conduct by alleging that he took an opportunity of privately and surreptitiously examining the limb while the niu’se and clerk were absent from the ward ; ” and this is the ground of the third issue. Now, where is there any such statement as that on the j)art of Mr Glover 1 He never uses the word limb ; he never says that he ex- amined the leg even, much less does he say that he examined the](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21913134_0060.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
