Concerning Indexes of Medical Journals

M. A. Walker
1902 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)  
would serve a useful purpose if you !nvited contributions to your columns concerning coincidences, and to express more clearly what I mean I will cite two cases from my own practice : A man came to me complaining of pain iy the right testis of two days' duration which he attributed to the testes having been suddenly squeezed between the left thigh and a bunch of keys in his right trouser pocket in the act of crossing his legs. No pain had ever been experienced in the part before. Examina¬ tion
more » ... ore. Examina¬ tion disclosed advanced tubercular epididymitis. A boy was brought to me supposed to be suffering from nervous shock, having been knocked over some days previously by a drunken man in the street. Routine examination commencing with the throat discovered diphtheria. Here is a factor, then, which, as far as I know, has never been touched on in the treatises on diagnosis-coincidence. There is no escape from being obliged to give it due consideration in our mental summing-up of the case unless we examine our patients from a veterinary point of view-perhaps a better way-finding out what we can by our own unaided industry. The consideration of the particular value to be attached to coincidence would lead me further than it is my intention to trespass on your valuable space. Recitation of cases from others would not only be highly instructive but also most interesting and would furnish a moral to adorn many a clinical tale. Yours faithfully, J. R. Clemens. ETHICS IN SUCCEEDING ANOTHER PHYSICIAN. Lawrence, Mass, Aug. 28, 1902. To the Editor:-Kindly decide this question of ethics, and oblige two members of the profession in good standing and others who may meet with a parallel case : A physician has been in attend¬ ance on a patient ten days (after miscarriage) and has made morning visit and is to call during afternoon. Meanwhile the fam¬ ily desires to dispense with his services-he has been paid in full for services rendered-they telephone for another physician who has no knowldge of the circumstances until he arrives at the bed¬ side. When he is informed that a fellow practitioner is expected to call he refuses to accept the case or give an opinion and rises to depart. The patient and her husband state that they desire his services and shall not further employ the other physician. He explains his position and ends by refusing to have anything to do with the case unless in consultation with the other physician. The family refuse to have the other physician. "Then, you must Dotify your attending physician not to call any more," said the second physician, "before I shall be at liberty to attend this pa¬ tient." The husband goes to the physician's office and leaves notice that his services are no longer required. The husband returns and states that he was unable to see the physician per¬ sonally but left woi'Q at his office for him not to call. Meanwhile, the patient suffers considerable pain. The second then accepts the case, makes examination, gives opinion and outlines treatment. He in no way solicits patronage, and neither criticised nor com¬ mented on the previous conduct of the case. Has he (the second physician) broken a rule of ethics or been guilty of conduct in any way discourteous to his fellow practitioner? Very truly yours,
doi:10.1001/jama.1902.02480370053014 fatcat:biicrhnqyja4zaotc2hxyu7ygq