[To THE EDITOR. OP THE " SPECTATOR. " ] SIR,—With reference to
the article on "Doctors and Adver- tising " in the Spectator of June 10th, 1911, I am instructed to ask you to make the following correction ; It is stated in the article that, "after hearing the evidence, the Council decided that all three of the doctors involved had been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect, and ordered that the name of one of them should be struck off the register." As a matter of fact, the Council, in the case of two of the accused practitioners, decided only that the facts alleged against them had been proved to its satisfaction. It did not pronounce its judgment on the facts proved in their case, and consequently they have not been judged " guilty of infamous conduct." Such a judgment carries with it, the penalty of erasure from the Register. The two practitioners have been warned that they will be called up for judgment in November next, in order that they may have an opportunity to reconsider their position and to satisfy the Council as to their professional conduct in the interval. In other similar cases it has happened that the Council has been satisfied with the action taken and the assurances given by an accused practitioner, and has thought fit to terminate the enquiry without pronouncing judgment upon him. In justice to the practitioners concerned it is desirable that the exact position of the enquiry, which in this case was adjourned, should be made clear.—I am, Sir, &c., NORMAN C. KING, 299 Oxford Street, W. Assistant Secretary.
{ We much regret to have stated the facts incorrectly. We relied upon the condensed newspaper reports.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
