THE LAW AND MEDICAL MEN
BY
R. VASHON ROGERS, JR.,
_Of Osgoode Hall, Barrister-at-Law_.
TORONTO, CANADA,
AND
EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND:
CARSWELL & CO., LAW BOOK PUBLISHERS.
1884.
PREFACE.
The idea that in the library of nearly every practitioner in the
professions of both Physic and Law there has been for some time a
small gap among the books, which could be filled by a little work like
this now submitted, has induced the author to prepare and publish the
following pages.
While it is hoped that this little work will prove of use to the
members of the Legal and Medical Professions, it is intended to be
suggestive rather than exhaustive—a primer not an encyclopædia; and
it is not expected that it will obviate the necessity for frequent
conferences between physicians and lawyers whenever, in the practice of
either, questions arise requiring the experience of the other.
In most cases the very words of the judges and reporters have been
used, and if any expressions are noticed that may be deemed over strong
it will be found that they are the words of others: the author’s aim
has been rather to act as an humble compiler and citer of cases, than
to obtrude opinions or theories of his own.
Brief chapters on Dentists and Druggists have been given because of
the intimate connection between these gentlemen and the members of the
medical profession.
With great diffidence this book is committed to the tender mercies
of the critics of these two learned professions—to those who can so
effectually wield the pen, the tongue and the scalpel.
R. V. B., JR.
Kingston, Ont., November, 1884.
CONTENTS.
PREFACE . . . iii
TABLE OF CASES CITED . . . vii–xiii
CHAPTER I.
EARLY PRACTITIONERS AND LAWS . . . 1–14
CHAPTER II.
FEES . . . 15–31
CHAPTER III.
WHO SHOULD PAY THE DOCTOR . . . 32–41
CHAPTER IV.
WHO MAY PRACTISE . . . 42–54
CHAPTER V.
NEGLIGENCE AND MALPRACTICE . . . 55–81
CHAPTER VI.
CRIMINAL MALPRACTICE . . . 82–92
CHAPTER VII.
PROFESSIONAL EVIDENCE . . . 93–107
CHAPTER VIII.
MEDICAL EXPERTS . . . 108–120
CHAPTER IX.
EXPERTS IN INSANITY CASES . . . 121–128
CHAPTER X.
DEFAMATION . . . 129–137
CHAPTER XI.
RELATIONS WITH PATIENTS . . . 138–148
CHAPTER XII.
DISSECTION AND RESURRECTION . . . 149–159
CHAPTER XIII.
DENTISTS . . . 160–173
CHAPTER XIV.
DRUGGISTS . . . 174–188
CHAPTER XV.
PARTNERS, GOODWILL, ASSISTANTS . . . 189–195
INDEX . . . 197–214
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
A.
Abernethy v. Hutchinson, 195
Adams v. Stevens, 17, 18
Adler v. Buckley, 20, 21
Ahearne v. Hogan, 141
Allen v. Davis, 140, 172
″ v. Eaton, 132
Allison v. Hayden, 16
Alpen v. Morton, 137
Anderson v. Burrows, 146
Andeureid’s Appeal, 138
Anon, 134, 190
Anthony v. Smith, 106
Apothecaries Company v. Lotinga, 12, 16
Ashworth v. Kittridge, 102
Askin & Charteris, _re_, 27
Aswell v. Lomi, 142
Austen v. Boys, 191
Aveson v. Lord Kinnaird, 96
Ayre v. Craven, 132, 134, 135.
B.
Bacon v. Charlton, 96
Baker v. London & S. W. Railway, 96
Ballon v. Prescott, 73
Barber v. Merriam, 96, 97, 117.
Barnes v. Means, 58
Barnstable v. Thatcher, 157
Basten v. Butler, 20
Bassett v. Spofford, 24
Battersby v. Lawrence, 16
Baxter v. Gray, 18, 19
Beekman v. Planter, 18
Bell v. Parke, 136
Bellinger v. Craigue, 21.
Bells v. Clifford, 28
Bergold v. Puckta, 131
Berier v. Galloway, 36
Bibber v. Simpson, 52
Billage v. Southbee, 140
Bill v. Neal, 130
Blackburn v. Great Western Railway, 81
Blake v. Midland Railway, 81.
Blackburn v. Mackey, 37, 39
Blogg v. Parkers, 20
Boardman v. Woodman, 113
Bogert v. Indianapolis, 153
Boone v. State, 188
Bowman v. Woods, 51, 53, 64, 100
Boyd v. Lappington, 33
Boynton v. Somersworth, 67, 148
Boyle v. Winslow, 166
Bracegirdle v. Orford, 157
Bradbury v. Bardin, 51, 120
Bradley v. Dodge, 33
Bradford v. People, 147
Brewer v. Dero, 157
Broad v. Pitt, 93
Brown v. N. Y. C., 97
″ v. Marshall, 179
″ v. Sheppard, 99, 101
″ v. State, 143
Buchanan v. State, 29
Buell v. N. Y. C., 117
Burton v. Scott, 128
C.
Cadwallader v. West, 139, 140
Cairo, etc., Railway v. Mahoney, 41
Caldwell v. Murphy, 97
Camp v. Martin, 133
Campan v. North, 94
Campbell v. Richards, 119
Carpenter v. Blake, 57, 58, 63, 64, 72, 73
Carnes v. Nesbitt, 193
Carson v. State, 148
Carter v. Baker, 114
″ v. State, 103
Castner v. Sliker, 112
Cawdry v. Highley, 130
Chamberland v. Morgan, 70
Chapen v. Marlborough, 96, 97
Chicago. etc., Railway v. McKean, 68
Chicago, etc., Railway v. McGiven, 108
Chorley v. Bolcot, 16
Clark v. Gill, 26
Clarke v. Freeman, 132
″ v. Hawke, 138, 139
Clark v. Kerwin, 69, 163
″ v. State, 116, 124
Clay v. Roberts, 134
Cleveland, etc., Railway v. Ferry, 68
Cohen v. Continental Insurance Company, 95
Collier v. Simpson, 99, 103
Collins v. Grady, 19
″ v. Carnegie, 134, 135
″ v. Graves, 23
Colton v. Thomas, 172
Commonwealth v. Butterick, 187
″ v. Cooley, 155
″ v. Hackett, 91
″ v. Hallett, 187
″ v. Loring, 155
″ v. Marshall, 155
″ v. McPike, 91
″ v. Ramsdell, 187
″ v. Rich, 128
″ v. Rodgers, 109, 124, 127
″ v. Sturtevant, 100, 117
″ v. Thompson, 84, 89
Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 100
Cooper v. Lloyd, 35
″ v. Phillips, 38, 40
″ v. N. Y. C., 41
Corsi v. Maretzek, 43, 51, 64, 115
Cossey v. L. B, and S. C., 96
Cox v. Midland Counties Ry., 41
Craig v. Chambers, 76
Craine v. Bandoine, 33
Crantz v. Gill, 37
Curtis v. Rochester, etc. Ry., 79
D.
Davidson v. Nicholls, 183
Davis v. Mason, 193
″ v. Ockham, 131
″ v. State, 113, 117, 124, 126
Deane v. Annis, 38
Delafield v. Parish, 124
Demay v. Roberts, 145
Dement, _Ex parte_, 30
Denison v. Denison, 138
Dent v. Bennett, 139, 140, 172
Denton v. State, 97, 98
Dickenson v. Barber, 124
Dingnan v. Walker, 192
Dixon v. Smith, 134
Doggett v. Lane, 141
Duclos’ Succession, 24
Duffit v. James, 21
Durnell v. Corfield, 142
E.
Eakin v. Brown, 68, 163
Edington v. Ætna Life Ins. Co., 96
Edsall V. Russell, 131, 133
Ellis v. Kelly, 16
Emerson v. Lowell Gas L. Co., 112
F.
Fairchild v. Bascomb, 112, 113, 125, 126
Farnsworth v. Garrard, 20
Farlar v. Lane, 141
Farr v. Pearce, 191
Fawcett v. Mothersell, 77
Fenwick v. Bell, 119
Fields v. Rutherford, 76
Fisk v. Wait, 69
Fletcher v. Fletcher, 146
Flint v. Bodenhamer, 124
Flower’s Case, 130
Fox v. Glastonbury, 20
Forgery v. First Nat. Bank, 114
Foster v. Small, 134
Fraser v. Jennison, 94, 103, 106
G.
Gale v. Rector, 103
Gallagher v. Thompson, 20
Gardiner v. Heartt, 56
Gardner v. People, 117
Geiselman v. Scott, 68
Genshaw v. Germain, 17
Getchell v. Hill, 114
George v. Skivington, 183
Gibson v. Russell, 140
″ v. Williams, 119
Gilman v. Andrews, 171
Gladwell v. Steggall, 75
Gramm v. Boener, 69
Goddart v. Haselfoot, 132
Granger Ins. Co. v. Brown, 159
Grattan v. Metropolitan L. I. Co., 95
Gray v. McLaughlin, 97
Greenough v. Gaskill, 93
Greonvelt’s Case, 55
Greville v. Lylee, 142
Guthrie v. Weaver, 153
H.
Haguenin v. Baseley, 138
Hains’ Case, 152
Hall v. Semple, 146
Hammond v. Stewart, 26
Hancke v. Hooper, 58, 167, 194
Handey v. Henson, 17
Haniline v. Commonwealth, 174
Hansford v. Payne, 182
Harbottle and Wilson _re_, 27
Harris v. Panama Railway Co., 103, 113
Harris v. Russell, 94
Harrison v. Bush, 136
″ v. Grady, 33, 35, 36
Hartman v. Tegart, 36
Hartford Pro. Ins. Co. v. Harmer, 108
Harvey v. State, 104
Hastings v. Rider, 128
″ v. Whitley, 193
Hathaway v. Nat. Life Ins. Co., 112
Haynard v. Young, 193
Hathorn v. Richmond, 61
Heald v. Wing, 113, 128
Heath v. Gibson, 59
Hegerick v. French, 80
Heinemann’s Appeal, _re_, 48
Hewitt v. Prime, 95
″ Wilcox, 18
Hibbard v. Thompson, 68, 69
Hides v. Hides, 140
Higham v. Ridgway, 106
Hill v. Featherstonhaugh, 21
Hills v. Home Insurance Co., 113
Hitchcock v. Burgett, 148
Hoard v. Peck, 187
Hoener v. Koch, 118
Hoghton v. Hoghton, 138, 139
Hollenback v. Fleet, 177
Holmes v. Halde, 80
Hood v. Grimes, 65
Horner v. Graves, 193
Horton v. Green, 54, 112
Howe v. Young, 179
Hoyt v. Casey, 39
Hughes v. Hampton, 23
Huffman v. Click, 103
Humphreys v. Stilwell, 137
Hunn v. Hunn, 95
Hunter v. Blount, 64
″ v. Ogden, 73
″ v. Sharpe, 133
Hunt v. Lowell Gas Light Co., 126
Hupe v. Phelps, 21
I.
Illinois Cen. Railway v. Sutton, 97
Indianapolis, etc., Railway v. Gaston, 79
Indian. and Cin. Railway v. Caldwell, 69
J.
Jackson v. Hyde, 77
Jarrett v. Jarrett, 124
Jauncey v. Knowles, 190
Jenkins v. French, 80
Johnson v. Robertson, 131
″ v. Wills, 79
Jones v. Diver, 133
″ v. Fay, 184
″ v. Goodrich, 141
″ v. George, 178
″ v. Murray, 179
″ v. Northmore, 78
″ v. White, 108
K.
Kannen v. McMullen, 21
Keily v. Colton, 164
Keith v. Lothrop, 116
Kennard v. Burton, 97
Kennedy v. People, 108, 119
Kerwhaker v. Cleveland, etc., Railway, 69
Kilborne v. Jennings, 114
Kingston’s Case, Duchess of, 93
Kinney v. Nash, 135
Klock v. Burger, 174
L.
Lamphier v. Philpot, 84
Landon v. Humphrey, 22
Langdon v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 54
Lee v. Hamerton, 96
″ v. Griffin, 169
Leighton v. Sargent, 58, 64, 67, 79, 118
Lett v. St. Lawrence & Ottawa Railway, 81
Lester v. Pittsford, 113
Linn v. Sigsbee, 120
Livingstone’s Case, 113
Long v. Chubb, 132
″ v. Morrison, 21, 57
Longmeid v. Holliday, 74
Lorg v. First German Cong. 113
Lovatt v. Tribe, 125
Luning v. State, 100, 105
Lush v. McDaniel, 97
Lynn’s Case, 154, 158
M
Mackenna v. Parkes, 190
Mahoney v. Nat. Widow’s Life Ass. 96
Major v. Knight, 142
Mallan v. May, 193
Malton v. Nesbitt, 125
Marshall v. Brown, 101
″ v. Peck, 179
Masons v. Fuller, 111
Matteson v. N. Y. C. Railway, 97, 117
Maxon v. Perrott, 170
May v. Thompson, 192
Meagher v. Driscoll, 157
Mendum v. Commonwealth, 113
Mertz v. Detweiler, 64, 118
Metropolitan Railway v. Jackson, 76
Michigan Cen. Railway v. Hasseneyer, 61
Middleton v. Sherbourne, 141, 143
Miller v. Beal, 23
Mills v. Perkins, 174
Mitchell v. Homfray, 141
″ v. State, 119
″ v. Connor, 147
Mock v. Kelly, 18, 25
Moises v. Thornton, 135
Morgan v. Hallen, 17
″ v. Schuyler, 173
Morrison v. Harmer, 133
Morse v. Auburn, etc., Railway, 81
Morse v. State, 119
Murphy v. Kellett, 137
Mc.
McAllister v. State, 124, 126
McCandless v. McWha, 58, 59, 61, 67
McClallen v. Adams, 26
McClurg’s Appeal, 193
McEwan v. Bigelow, 114
″ v. Milne, 138
McIntyre v. Belcher, 191
McLeod v. Wakley, 133
McPherson v. Chedell, 18
N.
Newell v. Doty, 117
New England Glass Co. v. Lovell, 119
New Orleans, etc., Railway v. Allbritton, 111
Newton v. Ker, 23
Nickson v. Brohan, 194
Nicols v. Pitman, 195
Norton v. Sewall, 182
O.
Ordway v. Haynes, 103
P.
Page v. Barker, 118
″ v. State, 126
Parker v. Adams, 68, 69, 163
Parkinson v. Atkinson, 26
Parnell v. Commonwealth, 114, 124
Patten v. Wiggin, 52, 57, 58, 62
Peacock v. Kesnot, 140
Pennell v. Cummings, 145
People v. Anderson, 103
″ v. Hall, 99
″ v. Monroe, 20
People v. Montgomery, 30
″ v. McCann, 125
″ v. N. Y. Hospital, 69
″ v. Wheeler, 103
Perionowsky v. Freeman, 66, 70
Phillips v. S. W. Railway, 79
Pierson v. People, 95
Pinney v. Cohill, 101
Piper v. Manifee, 22, 167
Pippin v. Shepherd, 65, 74
Poe v. Mondford, 131
Polk v. State, 112
Popham v. Brooke, 140
Potter v. Warner, 63, 71
″ v. Virgil, 36
Poucher v. Norman, 16
Pratt v. Barker, 140
Puryear v. Reese, 124
Q.
Quafe v. C. & N. W. Railway, 98
R.
Ramadge v. Ryan, 118, 119, 132
″ v. Wakley, 132
Ray v. Burbank, 186
Reynolds v. Graves, 54
″ v. Robinson, 120
Rhodes v. Bates, 138
Rice v. State, 84, 87, 89
Rich v. Pierpont, 59, 62, 117
Ripon v. Bittel, 100, 101
Ritchey v. West, 65
Roberts v. Johnson, 112
″ v. Kerfoot, 24
Robinson v. N. Y. C. Railway, 103
Rodgers v. Cline, 133
Roelker, _re_, 29
Rogers v. Cain, 97
″ v. Turner, 38
Roosa v. Boston Loan Co., 98
Rose v. College of Physicians, 12
Rowell v. Lowell, 98
Ruddock v. Lowe, 65
Russell v. State, 128
Rutherford v. Evans, 135
″ v. Norris, 110
R. v. Bennett, 194
″ v. Burnett, 147
″ v. Campbell, 46
″ v. Case, 144
″ v. Chamberlaine, 85
″ v. Coll. Phy. & Sur., 45, 47
″ v. Coll. Phy. & Sur., Ont., 148
″ v. Coney, 144
″ v. Crouch, 103
″ v. Cuddy, 144
″ v. Downes, 39
″ v. Frances, 144
″ v. Fraser, 147
″ v. Gibbons, 93
″ v. Gilles, 154
″ v. Hannah, 147
″ v. Hessel, 46
″ v. Higginson, 125
″ v. Hines, 39
″ v. Lee, 91
″ v. Long, 83, 86, 87
″ v. Lynn, 154, 159
″ v. Macleod, 66
″ v. Markuss, 88
″ v. Morby, 39
″ v. Noakes, 56, 183
″ v. Offord, 124
″ v. Price, 154
″ v. Richards, 125
″ v. Rosinski, 144
″ v. Searle, 120, 124, 125
″ v. Sharpe, 153, 154
″ v. Stanton, 144
″ v. Simpson, 65, 84, 87
″ v. Smith, 40
″ v. Spiller, 84
″ v. Spilling, 85
″ v. Stitt, 117
″ v. Sutton, 147
″ v. Tefft, 46, 190
″ v. Tessymond, 194
″ v. Thomas, 99
″ v. Trick, 83
″ v. Van Butchell, 84
″ v. Vantandillo, 147
″ v. Wagstaffe, 39
″ v. Webb, 84, 90
″ v. West, 147
″ v. Whitehead, 117
″ v. Williamson, 85
″ v. Wright, 125
S.
Sainter v. Ferguson, 193
Scott v. Wakem, 146
Seare v. Prentice, 21, 64
Seavey v. Preble, 143
Secord v. Harris, 131
Sellen v. Norman, 40
Shafer v. Dean’s ad’mor, 120
Shearwood v. Hay, 44
Sheldon v. Johnston, 24
Shields v. Blackburne, 65, 66
Simmons v. Means, 18
Simonds v. Henry, 58, 162, 168
Simpson v. Dismore, 18
Sinclair v. Rourk, 113
Sizer v. Burt, 106
Skinner v. G. N. Ry., 96
Skirving v. Ross, 134
Slater v. Baker, 59, 71, 168
Small v. Howard, 61
Smith v. Lane, 51
″ v. Hyde, 25
″ v. Watson, 18, 34
Southey v. Denny, 130, 132
Spaun v. Mercer, 33
Stackman v. Vivian, 38
Staunton v. Parker, 94
State v. Bowman, 117
″ v. Clark, 118
″ v. Cook, 112
″ v. Dickinson, 147
″ v. Fitzgerald, 147
″ v. Gedicke, 147
″ v. Hardister, 88
″ v. Henkle, 112
″ v. Hoyt, 104, 105
″ v. Holmes, 174
″ v. Knowles, 188
″ v. Laffer, 187
″ v. Jones, 117
″ v. Powell, 117
″ v. Reddick, 112
″ v. Shultz, 85, 89
″ v. Slagh, 117
″ v. Slagle, 147
″ v. Smith, 116, 117
″ v. Sturtevant, 117
″ v. Watson, 110
″ v. West, 104
″ v. Windsor, 126
″ v. Wood, 111, 117
″ v. Wray, 188
Stephenson v. N. Y. and H. R. Ry., 41
Stirling v. Thorp, 100
Street v. Blackburn, 166
St. Louis Mut. Ins. Co. v. Graves, 115
Suegoe’s Case, 133
Summer v. State, 31
Sutton v. Tracy, 48, 54
Swain v. Tyler, 38
T.
Tate v. State, 155, 156
Tatum v. Mohr, 114
Tingley v. Congill, 125
Thistleton v. Frewer, 52
Thomas v. Winchester, 180
Thorpe v. Shapleigh, 36
Todd v. Myers, 23
Toomes, _re_, 111, 113
Towne v. Gresley, 17
Tracy Peerage, 110
Tullis v. Kidd, 113
Tulty v. Alewin, 131
Turner v. Reynall, 44, 190
″ v. Turner, 26
Tuson v. Batting, 19, 23
Twombly v. Leach, 117
U.
U. S. v. McGlue, 126, 127
Utley v. Burns, 58
V.
Van Bracken v. Fondar, 179
Van Tassel v. Capson, 135
Veitch v. Russell, 16
Villalobas v. Mooney, 23
W.
Wade v. DeWitt, 104, 105
Wagstaffe v. Sharpe, 44
Walker v. G. W. Railway, 41
Wakley v. Healey, 135
Washburn v. Cuddihy, 103
Watling v. Walters, 33
Watson v. Vanderlash, 131
Webb v. Paige, 26, 28
Webber v. Shampake, 36
Wennall v. Adney, 40
Whetherbee v. Whetherbee, 128
Whalen v. St. Louis, etc., Railway, 79
Wharton v. Brook, 130
Wheeler v. Sims, 23
Whitcomb v. Reid, 171
Whittaker v. Parker, 110
White v. Bailey, 124, 125
″ v. Carroll, 132
Williams v. Poppleton, 118
″ v. Williams, 153
Wilmot v. Howard, 57, 70
″ v. Shaw, 47
Wilson v. Brett, 65, 166
″ v. Granby, 97
″ v. People, 117
″ v. Rastall, 93
Winans v. N. Y. & E. Railway, 113, 121
Wise v. Wilson, 194
Witt v. Witt, 97
Wohlfarht v. Beckert, 185
Woods v. Kelly, 37
Woods v. State, 188
Wright v. Proud, 140
Wynkoop v. Wynkoop, 153
Y.
Yertore v. Wiswall, 80
Yoe v. State, 105
Young v. Makepeace, 116
CORRIGENDA.
Page 5, line 23, _for_ ousted _read_ ousting.
″ 8, line 3, _for_ was _read_ were.
″ 12, line 17, _for_ his _read_ its.
″ 24, line 19, _for_ friend _read_ friends.
″ 43, line 18, _read_ Hahnemann _for_ Hahnneman.
″ 55, line 6, _for_ misdemeanour _read_ misdemeanor.
″ 85, last line but one, transpose the , and the ;.
″ 96, line 7, _read_ witnesses, can be excluded the
″ 103, line 15, _for_ Brown’s _read_ Browne’s.
″ 105, line 10, _for_ words _read_ works.
″ 115, line 5, _for_ opinion _read_ opinions.
″ 119, last line but one, _read_ opinion of another etc.
″ 138, line 1, _read_ occupies _for_ occupying.
″ 173, line 12, _read_ within.
″ 175, line 4, _read_ chemical.
″ 177, last line, _read_ venditor.
THE LAW AND MEDICAL MEN.
CHAPTER I.
EARLY PRACTITIONERS AND LAWS.
The first medical practitioners in England, of whom we have any record,
were the Druids: these philosophers, theologians and soothsayers,
also practised medicine and surgery, and were skilled in anatomy and
physic. To add to the veneration in which they were held, to impress
the ignorant masses with the idea that they had power with the gods and
could prevail, and perhaps to cultivate a belief in the efficacy of
the remedies provided, they mingled incantations and charms with their
medicaments and nostrums. Their panacea was the mistletoe, cut from
the sacred oak, with a consecrated hook of gold held in holy hands, on
a mysterious night when the propitious beams of the waxing moon fell
upon it; wrapped for a while in a sanctified cloth and treasured up in
the holy of holies of the woodland god, this strange parasitic growth
was deemed possessed of many virtues and was named All-heal. Two other
herbs, the selago and samolus were also in those days highly valued for
their medicinal efficacy.
To every healing herb a divinity was assigned by the Druids, and the
good gods were ever ready to help suffering |2| humanity against the
evil genii who presided over the poisonous and unwholesome.
These priests also considered the creeping through _tolmens_ (or
perforated stones) good for many diseases. Their best charm, however,
was the anguineum, or snake’s egg, produced (’tis said) from the saliva
and frothy sweat of a cluster of snakes writhing in a tangled mass,
tossed in the air by the fierce hissings of the serpents, and caught
ere it fell to the ground in a clean white cloth. A genuine egg, though
encased in gold, would float against a running stream and do many
another marvel. The Druid seems to have been a herbalist, a believer
in the faith or prayer cure, as well as a homœopathist, for in taking
the diseased plant, the mistletoe, to cure diseases he anticipated the
doctrine of _similia similibus curantur_.
Even in those old days, according to Tacitus, there were female
physicians who competed with the practitioners of the other sex. The
wives of the Druids exercised the calling of sorceresses, causing
considerable evil by their witchcrafts, but caring for warriors
wounded in battle. Later on women seem to have enjoyed a pre-eminence
as physicians and surgeons in England. Thus are we told that a “Mayd”
treated a wounded “Squyre,”
Meekely shee bowed downe, to weete if life
Yett in his frosen members did remaine;
And, feeling by his pulses beating rife
That the weake sowle her seat did yett retaine,
Shee cast to comfort him with busy paine.
* * * * *
Into the woods thenceforth in haste shee went,
To seeke for herbes that mote him remedy;
For she of herbes had great intendiment.
* * * * *
There, whether yt divine tobacco were,
Or panachæa, or polygony,
Shee fownd, and brought it to her patient deare,
Who al this while lay bleding out his hart blood neare. |3|
The soveraine weede betwixt two marbles plaine
Shee pownded small, and did in peeces bruze;
And then atweene her lilly handes twaine
Into his wound the juice thereof did scruze;
And round about, as she could well it uze,
The flesh therewith she suppled, and did steepe
T’abate all spasme and soke the swelling bruze;
And, after having searcht the intuse deepe,
She with her scarf did bind the wound from cold to keep [1].
Of fair Nicolette we read—
Her strength alone
Thrust deftly back the dislocated bone;
Then culling various herbs of virtue tried,
While her white smock the needful bands supplied,
With many a coil the limb she swathed around,
And nature’s strength returned.
Chirurgery, or surgery—that is manual application—appears to have been
the earliest branch of the healing art. We are told of a wonderful cure
effected upon Queen Elgiva, whose beauteous face had been mutilated
by the brutal clergy. Many superstitious practices were in the early
days mingled with the operations of the surgeons, as well as of the
physicians. History speaks of a man the muscles of whose legs were
drawn up and contracted so as to defy all the skill of the surgeons,
until an angel advised wheat flour to be boiled in milk, and the limb
to be poulticed with it while warm; then all was well.
From the tenth to the twelfth century the practice of medicine and
surgery, in England, was almost exclusively in the hands of the monks
and clergy. So lucrative did they find it that many of the monks
devoted themselves entirely to it, to the utter neglect of their
religious duties. This the authorities of the church disapproved of,
and made many attempts to restrain. At last, in 1163, it was enacted
by the Council of Tours that no clergyman or monk should undertake any
bloody operation. From that time |4| the clerics confined themselves
to prescribing medicines, and the practice of surgery naturally fell
into the hands of the barbers and smiths, who had previously been
employed as assistants and dressers to the ecclesiastical operators.
The smiths soon found that most of the business was absorbed by the
barbers: the latter kept little shops for cutting hair, shaving,
bathing and curing the wounded, especially about the royal palaces and
the houses of the great: the shops were marked by a striped pole and a
basin, symbols that all the king’s subjects might know where to apply
in time of need; (the fillet around the pole indicating the ribbon for
bandaging the arm in bleeding, and the basin the vessel to receive
the blood). The barbers became so important that in 1461 the freemen
of “The Mystery of Barbers, using the mystery or faculty of Surgery,”
obtained a charter from Edward IV., and were incorporated under the
name of “The Company of Barbers in London,” and none were allowed to
practise save those admitted by the company. Although this charter was
several times confirmed by subsequent kings, yet side by side with
the regular barber-surgeons there grew up a body of men who practised
pure surgery, and who actually formed a company, called “The Surgeons
of London.” In 1540, by Act of Parliament, these rival companies
were united and named “The Masters, or Governors, of the Mystery and
Commonalty of the Barbers and Surgeons of London.”
The third section of this Act, after reciting that persons using the
mystery of surgery oftentimes meddled and took into their cure and
houses people infected with pestilence, great pox, and other contagious
infirmities, and also used or exercised barbery, as washing, or
shaving, or other feats thereto belonging, “which was very perilous for
infecting the King’s liege people resorting to their shops and houses
and there being washed and shaven,” enacted “that no |5| manner of
person within the City of London, suburbs of the same and one mile
compass of said City of London, after the feast of the Nativity of Our
Lord God then next coming, using barbery or shaving, or that hereafter
shall use barbery or shaving within the said city, etc., he nor they,
nor none of them, to his, her, or their use, shall occupy any surgery,
letting of blood, or any other thing belonging to surgery, drawing of
teeth only excepted; and furthermore, in like manner, whosoever that
useth the mystery or craft of surgery within the circuit aforesaid, as
long as he shall fortune to use the said mystery or craft of surgery,
shall in nowise occupy nor exercise the feat or craft of barbery or
shaving, neither by himself, nor by one other for him, to his or their
use; and moreover, that all manner of persons using surgery for the
time being, as well freemen as foreigners, aliens and strangers within
the circuit aforesaid, before the feast of St. Michael the Archangel,
next coming, shall have an open sign on the street side where they
shall fortune to dwell, that all the King’s liege people there passing
by may know at all times whither to resort for remedies in time of
necessity [2].”
In 1745 this union of barbers and surgeons was dissolved; or,
apparently, the surgeons ousting the barbers, received a new name
and all the privileges of the old company, with the exclusive right
to practise within London and for seven miles around. In 1800 the
Surgeons’ Company was called “The Royal College of Surgeons, in
London;” and this, in 1843, was changed to that of “The Royal College
of Surgeons of England.”
In Scotland, at a very early day, the chirurgeons and barbers were
united, and enjoyed many rights and privileges. In 1505 the “craftes
of Surregeury and Barbouris” were |6| formed into a college or
corporation, by the town council of Edinburgh, and became one of the
fourteen incorporated trades of the city. George the Third erected this
corporation into a Royal College, and now it is known as “The Royal
College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.” In 1599, James VI., “to avoid the
inconvenience caused by ignorant, unskilled, and unlearned persons,
who, under the colour of chirurgeons, are in the habit of abusing the
people to their pleasure, and of destroying thereby infinite numbers
of his Majesty’s subjects,” incorporated the faculty of Physicians
and Surgeons of Glasgow; and gave them jurisdiction over the City of
Glasgow and the adjoining counties. A recent Act of Parliament has very
much shorn the privileges of this faculty [3].
In Ireland, the “Fraternity of Barbers and Chirurgeons of the Guild
of S. Mary Magdalene” was incorporated by Henry II. The apothecaries
belonged to this body until 1745, when, with the aid of a statute, they
set up for themselves, as “The Guild of S. Luke,” or “The worshipful
Company of Apothecaries.” In 1784 the regularly educated surgeons of
Dublin became incorporated under the name of “The Royal College of
Surgeons in Ireland.”
In the twelfth century medicine seems to have been first studied
as a science in England. The Universities enacted that none should
practise physic without passing through a certain course of study. In
the fourteenth century the degree of Doctor of Physic was by no means
uncommon. For many years physicians were greatly aided in chemistry and
medical science by the discoveries of alchemists, and the search after
the philosopher’s stone and the elixir of life gave many useful hints
to practitioners. Chaucer well describes a “Doctour of Phisike,” in the
Prologue to the |7| Canterbury Tales, and gives an insight into the
state of medical knowledge in the fourteenth century.
——He was grounded in astronomie.
He kept his patient a ful gret del
In houres by his magike naturel.
He knew the cause of every maladie,
Were it of cold, or hote, or moist, or drie,
And when engendred, and of what humour.
He was a veray parfite practisour.
The cause yknowe, and of his harm the rote,
Anon he gave to the sike man his bote.
Ful redy hadde he his apothecaries
To send him dragges, and his lettuaries,
For eche of hem made other for to winne:
His frendship n' as not newe to beginne.
Wel knew he the old Esculapius,
And Dioscorides, and eke Rufus;
Old Hippocras, Hali, and Gallien;
Serapion, Rasis and Avicen;
Averrois, Damascene and Constantin,
Bernard, and Gatisden and Gilbertin.
Of his diete mesurable was he,
For it was of no superfluitee,
But of gret nourishing and digestible.
His studie was but litel on the Bible.
In 1421, under Henry V., an Act was prepared, providing that “no one
shall use the mysterie of fysyk, unless he hath studied it at some
university, and is at least a bachelor in that science. And saying, the
sheriff shall inquire whether any one practises in his county contrary
to this regulation; and if any one so practise fysyk he shall forfeit
£40 and be imprisoned: and any woman who shall practise fysyk shall
incur the same penalty.” But this appears never to have become law.
It was not, however, until the beginning of the sixteenth century that
modern British medical practice may be said to have commenced. And
in 1511 was passed the first |8| statute for regulating the medical
profession [4]. From the preamble of this Act we learn that physic and
surgery were then practised by “ignorant persons, who could tell no
letters on the book, and by common artificers, smiths, weavers, and
women, who took upon themselves great cures, partly using sorcery and
witchcraft, partly applying very noxious medicines to the disease.”
Many years after this, however, were to be found those who though
not “ignorant persons” approved of what would now be called sorcery,
witchcraft and noxious medicines. Bacon gives the following as
infallible cures for the whooping-cough: let a pie-bald horse breathe
on the patient: give him fried mice, three a day for three days in
succession: pass the sick person nine times under the belly and over
the back of a donkey: feed the patient on currant cake made by a woman
who did not change her name when she was married: or, hold a toad in
the mouth that it may catch the disease. Burton, the Anatomist, says
that an amulet consisting of a spider in a nut-shell, lapped with silk,
is a cure for ague. Graham, in his “Domestic Medicine,” prescribes
spider’s webs for ague and intermittent fevers.
By the statute of Henry the profession was for the first time divided
into physicians, surgeons and apothecaries: a division still kept up
in England. It also enacts, under a penalty, that “no physician or
surgeon shall practise in London, or within seven miles of it, without
examination by the Bishop of London, or the Dean of St. Paul’s, and
four doctors of physic; nor out of the city, or precinct, but if he
be first examined and approved by the bishop of the diocese, or his
vicar-general, calling to them such expert persons in the same faculty
as their discretion shall think convenient.” Fancy a D.D. sitting in
judgment on an |9| M.D. How orthodox and regular in his attendance at
church would the latter have to be! However, 14 & 15 Henry VIII. cap.
5, vests this power of examination in the President and Elects of the
College of Physicians of London. This Royal College was founded in 1518
by letters patent from the king. Power was given to it to make laws
for the government of all men of the faculty of physic in London and
within seven miles, and for the correction of the physicians within
those limits and their medicines: and none could practise within those
limits without a license. Shortly after an Act of Parliament confirmed
this patent so that none could practise in England without the license
of the college, save graduates of Oxford and Cambridge. Subsequently
Fellows of the college were given power, together with the warden of
the Apothecaries’ Society, to enter the houses of apothecaries in
London, to examine their wares, drugs and stuffs, and to burn and
destroy those that were defective.
In 1560, by 32 Henry VIII. cap. 40, surgery was declared a part of
physic, and the practice thereof was thrown open to all of the company
or fellowship of physicians throughout the realm. Not long afterwards
the Parliament of this reforming king seems to have changed its mind
and made a move in the direction of free-trade in physic, and by 34 &
35 Henry VIII. cap. 8, any man or woman was permitted to practise to
a limited extent. We fancy we can trace the influence of the sturdy
king in the provisions of this Act, which was entitled, “An Act that
persons being no common surgeons may administer outward medicines
notwithstanding the statute;” the statute after referring to the Act
passed in the third year of the king’s reign (which imposed penalties
upon those who should practise as physicians or surgeons without being
examined and admitted) goes on to say, “Sithence the making of which
said Act (that of 3 Henry VIII.) the |10| company and fellowships of
surgeons of London, minding only their own lucres, and nothing the
profit or ease of the diseased or patient, have sued, troubled and
vexed divers honest persons, as well men as women, whom God hath endued
with the knowledge of the nature, kind and operation of certain herbs,
roots and waters, and the using and ministering of them to such as be
pained with customable diseases, as women’s breasts being sore, a pin
and the web in the eye, uncomes of hands, burnings, scaldings, sore
mouths, the stone, strangury, saucelin, and morphers, and such other
like diseases; and yet the said persons have not taken anything for
their pains or cunning, but have ministered the same to poor people
only, for neighbourhood and God’s sake, and of pity and charity. And
it is now well-known that the surgeons admitted will do no cure to any
person, but where they shall know to be rewarded with a greater sum or
reward than the cure extendeth unto: for in case they would minister
their cunning unto sore people unrewarded there should not so many rot
and perish to death, for lack of help of surgery, as daily do; but the
greatest part of surgeons admitted have been much more to be blamed
than those persons that they trouble.” It further states that “although
the most part of the persons of the said craft of surgery have small
cunning, yet they will take great sums of money and do little therefor,
and by reason thereof they do oftentimes impair and hurt their patients
rather than do them good.” In consideration whereof and for the ease
and health of the king’s poor subjects, it was enacted that it should
be lawful to every person having knowledge and experience of the nature
of herbs, etc., to practise and minister them without suit or vexation.
(Here is evidence of the existence of herb doctors, hydropaths and lady
physicians in those days.)
Numerous Acts of Parliament have been passed touching the medical
profession since the days of “Bluff King Hal,” |11| one under
James I. to prevent popish recusants practising physic, or using or
exercising the trade or art of an apothecary; another under William
and Mary for exempting apothecaries from serving as constables or
scavengers; another for exempting spirits and spirituous liquours used
by physicians, &c., in the preparation of medicine from duty, and
others for purposes too numerous to mention. But it is the Medical
Act of 1858, as amended by 22 Vict. cap. 21, that now governs the
practitioners.
In 1681, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, was incorporated
and power was given of licensing practitioners and of preventing others
practising. In Ireland, although the idea had been conceived many years
before, it was not until 1654 that a body called “The President and
Fraternity of Physicians” was founded; subsequently this company was
incorporated and powers given to it very similar to those enjoyed by
the London College. Under the Medical Act, Her Majesty was empowered to
change the name of this institution (which had already enjoyed several
aliases), to that of “The Royal College of Physicians of Ireland.”
In England and Ireland a third class of medical practitioners exists,
namely, the apothecaries. Prior to the days of Henry VIII. an
apothecary seems to have been the common name in England for a general
practitioner in medicine. About that time shops began to be established
for the exclusive sale of drugs and medicinal compounds, and those
who kept these shops often took upon them to doctor their customers.
In 1542 Henry’s parliament permitted any irregular practitioner to
administer outward medicines, and these shopkeepers readily availed
themselves of the permission granted by the Act and pushed the sale of
their drugs and obtained larger prices on account of the advice they
gave with them, and they appropriated exclusively the title of |12|
apothecaries. In 1617 they were incorporated under the name of “The
Master, Wardens and Society of the Art and Mystery of Apothecaries of
the City of London.” About the beginning of the seventeenth century
they began to prescribe as well as supply medicine; and although the
College of Physicians resisted this poaching on what they considered
their preserves, still early in the eighteenth century the matter was
settled in favor of the apothecaries, since which time they have been
legally recognised as a branch of the medical profession [5].
An Act of 1815 now regulates the practice of apothecaries throughout
England and Wales, and no one can act as such or recover any charges
for his services unless he has a certificate from the Society of
Apothecaries. An apothecary is bound to make up any prescription
duly signed by a licensed physician [6]. Creswell, J., considered an
apothecary one “who professes to judge of internal disease by its
symptoms, and applies himself to cure that disease by medicine.” And
Glenn says that the practice of an apothecary may now be said to
consist in attending and advising patients afflicted with diseases
requiring medical (as distinguished from surgical) treatment; and
prescribing, compounding and supplying medicines for their cure and
relief [7].
The invention of medicine was generally attributed by the ancients
to the gods, and both in Egypt and Greece female divinities were
intimately connected with the healing art. Isis not only caused, but
cured disease; she discovered—so it was said—many remedies and as late
as Galen several compounds in the materia medica bore her name. Hygeia,
the daughter of Æsculapius, was deemed |13| the goddess of health, and
Juno presided at accouchments. These fables show that in the remotest
antiquity woman practised medicine. The laws of Greece, at a later
period, forbad women to practise; thus, also, was it in Rome. However,
300 years before Christ, Agnodice—a young Athenian—dared to attend
in disguise the schools of medicine forbidden to her sex. Preserving
her incognito, when her education was finished she soon acquired a
lucrative practice; and eventually her case caused the law against
women to be revoked.
In the Middle Ages, among Mohammedans, many women were skilled in
attending to the needs of their own sex; and among the Christians,
nuns as well as monks ministered to bodies as well as souls diseased,
practising both surgery and physic. In Italy, at Salerno, women
prepared drugs and cosmetics, practised among persons of both sexes,
took doctor’s degrees, wrote treatises on medical subjects, obtained
the royal authority to engage in the art, and composed poems in praise
of their science. At the University of Bologna, as late as 1760,
Anna Morandi Manzolini filled the chair of Anatomy; her reputation
was European, and her lecture-room was frequented by students of all
countries—so great was her skill in delicate dissections, and so
clearly did she demonstrate the wonders of the human form divine. Dr.
Maria delle Donne was professor of medicine and obstetrics in the same
college in 1799; and many were the lady graduates of the Universities
of Padua, Pavia and Ferrara, as well as Bologna.
In France, the earliest official document extant relative to the
profession (dated 1311) forbids the practice of surgeons, or female
surgeons, who have failed to pass the required examinations; and
an edict of 1352 refers to female practitioners. In Spain, the
Universities of Cordova, Salamanca and Alcala bestowed doctor’s
degrees on |14| many women. In Germany, also, a number of the fair
sex successfully cultivated the science of medicine, and practised it,
in the last century and in the early part of this. In England, as has
already been seen, in early days women practised the healing arts.
Henry VIII. checked them for a time, but in his old age, changing his
mind on this, as on almost every other subject, gave them liberty to
minister to the outward and less serious ailments of his people.
Crossing the Atlantic an entry is found, under the date of March, 1638,
which tells a tale. It is this: “Jane Hawkins, the wife of Richard
Hawkins, had liberty till the beginning of the third month, called May,
and the magistrates (if she did not depart before) to dispose of her:
and in the meantime she is not to meddle in surgery or phisick, drinks,
plaisters or oyles, nor to question matters of religion, except with
the elders for satisfaction [8].” But now woman is no longer regarded
as too good or too stupid to study medicine in America; in nearly
every State in the Union she has free access to Medical Colleges [9].
The Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
admit to registration and practice any person who complies with their
requirements, without regard to sex. And the Imperial Parliament, by an
Act passed in 1876, affirmed the principle that women are entitled to
become registered practitioners of medicine.
|15|