The Doctors Dilemma: Preface | Page 4

doctor, being
omniscient, cannot make mistakes) is as unjust as to blame the nearest
apothecary for not being prepared to supply you with sixpenny-worth
of the elixir of life, or the nearest motor garage for not having perpetual
motion on sale in gallon tins. But if apothecaries and motor car makers
habitually advertized elixir of life and perpetual motion, and succeeded
in creating a strong general belief that they could supply it, they would
find themselves in an awkward position if they were indicted for
allowing a customer to die, or for burning a chauffeur by putting petrol
into his car. That is the predicament the doctor finds himself in when he
has to defend himself against a charge of malpractice by a plea of
ignorance and fallibility. His plea is received with flat credulity; and he
gets little sympathy, even from laymen who know, because he has
brought the incredulity on himself. If he escapes, he can only do so by
opening the eyes of the jury to the facts that medical science is as yet
very imperfectly differentiated from common curemongering
witchcraft; that diagnosis, though it means in many instances (including
even the identification of pathogenic bacilli under the microscope) only
a choice among terms so loose that they would not be accepted as
definitions in any really exact science, is, even at that, an uncertain and
difficult matter on which doctors often differ; and that the very best
medical opinion and treatment varies widely from doctor to doctor, one
practitioner prescribing six or seven scheduled poisons for so familiar a

disease as enteric fever where another will not tolerate drugs at all; one
starving a patient whom another would stuff; one urging an operation
which another would regard as unnecessary and dangerous; one giving
alcohol and meat which another would sternly forbid, etc., etc., etc.: all
these discrepancies arising not between the opinion of good doctors and
bad ones (the medical contention is, of course, that a bad doctor is an
impossibility), but between practitioners of equal eminence and
authority. Usually it is impossible to persuade the jury that these facts
are facts. Juries seldom notice facts; and they have been taught to
regard any doubts of the omniscience and omnipotence of doctors as
blasphemy. Even the fact that doctors themselves die of the very
diseases they profess to cure passes unnoticed. We do not shoot out our
lips and shake our heads, saying, "They save others: themselves they
cannot save": their reputation stands, like an African king's palace, on a
foundation of dead bodies; and the result is that the verdict goes against
the defendant when the defendant is a doctor accused of malpractice.
Fortunately for the doctors, they very seldom find themselves in this
position, because it is so difficult to prove anything against them. The
only evidence that can decide a case of malpractice is expert evidence:
that is, the evidence of other doctors; and every doctor will allow a
colleague to decimate a whole countryside sooner than violate the bond
of professional etiquet by giving him away. It is the nurse who gives
the doctor away in private, because every nurse has some particular
doctor whom she likes; and she usually assures her patients that all the
others are disastrous noodles, and soothes the tedium of the sick- bed
by gossip about their blunders. She will even give a doctor away for the
sake of making the patient believe that she knows more than the doctor.
But she dare not, for her livelihood, give the doctor away in public.
And the doctors stand by one another at all costs. Now and then some
doctor in an unassailable position, like the late Sir William Gull, will
go into the witness box and say what he really thinks about the way a
patient has been treated; but such behavior is considered little short of
infamous by his colleagues.
WHY DOCTORS DO NOT DIFFER
The truth is, there would never be any public agreement among doctors
if they did not agree to agree on the main point of the doctor being
always in the right. Yet the two guinea man never thinks that the five

shilling man is right: if he did, he would be understood as confessing to
an overcharge of one pound seventeen shillings; and on the same
ground the five shilling man cannot encourage the notion that the
owner of the sixpenny surgery round the corner is quite up to his mark.
Thus even the layman has to be taught that infallibility is not quite
infallible, because there are two qualities of it to be had at two prices.
But there is no agreement even in the same rank at the same price.
During the first great epidemic of influenza towards the end of the