The Censors of the College of Physicians have, according to
the British Medical Journal, published their award concerning Dr. Pavy's absurd complaint against Sir William Gull, for giving on the inquest some months ago at Guy's Hospital, on his oath, an opinion differing from Dr. Pavy's as to the medi- cal condition of the poor woman so grossly neglected by one of the nurses, and so, as Dr. Pavy held, reflecting on the medical competence of Dr. Pavy. The Censors absolve Sir William. Gull from any breach of etiquette in going into court and telling the truth as to his own view, even though the truth as to his own view did not confirm the view of Dr. Pavy. They do not think Sir William Gull should have withheld his sincere opinion out of respect for Dr. Pavy, and do not even condemn him for venturing to form a sincere opinion which implied a probability of error in Dr. Pavy. This is very encouraging. On the other hand, they make matters quite smooth with Dr. Pan, by promptly denying that there is any justification for impugning the skill of his diagnosis and treatment, They bow both parties, in fact, cere- moniously out of court. Nothing can be sillier than this sensitiveness in one physician to the avowal of some difference of opinion in another physician, as if it were a slur on his medical infallibility. Every one who knows anything of the matter, knows that in innumerable cases both diagnosis and treatment are, at best, matters of probable conjecture, and more or less doubtful experiment. If the Censors of the College of Physicians were a little less given to punctilio, they would have said right out that Dr. Pavy had nothing in the world to complain of, and that the etiquette by which one physician thinks himself bound never to challenge the judgment of another, is one of the hollow conventionalities of professional reserve unworthy of the candour of true Science.
Previous page
