Am.  Jour.  Pharm. ) 
Aug.,  1878.  ; 
Editorial. 
"wack-up"  should  be  demanded  only  in  case  of  a  satisfactory  and  bounteous- 
decision. 
Dr.  Garrod  told  what  he  believed  to  be  the  truth  ;  but  it  is  not  at  all  improbable 
that  the  indistinct  "  nervous  depression  "  may  have  been  to  a  great  degree  imaginary 
or  the  result  of  causes  other  then  belladonna.  Belladonna  contains  active  principles 
in  addition  to  atropia,  and  these  may  have  had  an  influence.  At  any  rate,  the  experi- 
ence of  Dr.  Garrod  is  unique  5  and  neither  physicians  nor  druggists  should  be  held 
responsible  for  exceptional  effects,  so  rare  as  to  be  almost  incredible. 
The  La<w,  the  Object  and  the  Interpretation. — The  Code  of  1876  and  1877  pro- 
vides: "A  person  duly  authorized  to  practice  physic  or  surgery  shall  not  be  allowed 
to  disclose  any  information  which  he  acquired  in  attending  a  patient  in  a  profes- 
sional capacity,  and  which  was  necessary  to  enable  him  to  act  in  that  capacity." 
And  the  Court  of  Appeals  holds  that  any  information,  however  acquired,  which  is 
necessary  for  a  physician  to  prescribe  for  his  patient  is  excluded.  Judge  Miller 
stated  that  such  exclusion  is  necessary  for  the  safety  of  the  patient.  Let  us  look  for 
a  moment  at  this  monstrous  enactment.  Any  person  "  duly  authorized  "  to  prac- 
tice physics  and  surgery  cannot  reveal  the  condition  of  his  patient  even  to  protect 
the  greatest  fraud.  But  a  person  not  duly  authorized,  a  person  not  having  a  diploma, 
or  having,  as  is  sometimes  the  case,  a  forged  diploma,  can  disclose  any  information 
which  he  chooses.  The  reputable  physician,  who  knows  all  the  facts  in  the  case, 
must  stand  by  with  folded  hands,  and  see  an  unscrupulous  patient  fleece  his  victim^ 
while  the  charlatan,  expelled  from  society  for  having  spurious  credentials,  is  per- 
mitted to  give  his  base  assistance  to  the  side  which  offers  the  greatest  recompense. 
I  take  it  that  the  law  was  intended  to  prevent  revelations  affecting  the  personal 
honor  or  the  delicacy  of  the  patient.  It  was  unnecessary,  so  far  as  anyone  worthy 
of  a  place  in  the  profession  is  concerned,  for  the  secrets  of  the  medical  confessional 
can  never  be  extorted  from  the  honorable  physician.  But  there  are  worthless 
scoundrels  who  creep  into  every  profession,  and  they  must  be  restrained  from  blurt- 
ing out  unpleasant  facts  which  have  been  communicated  in  confidence.  Hence  the 
necessity  for  some  law.  But  this  law  shuts  the  mouths  of  those  who  would  never 
open  them  to  betray,  while  it  authorizes  the  outcasts  of  the  profession  to  divulge 
secrets  dearer  than  life,  or  to  demand  blackmail  as  the  price  of  concealment.  It 
could  never  have  been  the  intention  of  decent  legislators  to  prevent  a  physician  from 
contradicting  a  patient  as  to  the  effect  which  a  certain  drug  produced.  A  nervous, 
hypochondriacal  patient  might  exaggerate  his  symptoms  j  an  unscrupulous  one, 
under  the  goading  of  a  famished  legal  barnacle,  might  not  only  exaggerate  existing 
symptoms,  but  feign  a  multitude  of  new  ones  5  and  the  attending  physician  is  the 
only  person  in  the  world  who  can  rightly  weigh  the  real  and  detect  the  fradulent. 
It  is  monstrous  injustice  to  admit  the  testimony  of  the  interested  fraud  and  exclude 
evidence  that  would  reveal  the  imposition.  It  is  well  enough  to  forbid  the  revela- 
tion of  disgraceful  or  ridiculous  secrets,  but  the  present  enactment  with  its  tempta- 
tions to  fraud,  and  its  special  license  to  the  worst  scapegraces  in  the  world,  is  a 
hideous  travesty  of  justice — a  connivance  at  blackmailing — a  monstrous  blot  on 
the  statute-book  of  the  Empire  State.  It  should  be  repealed.  I  need  not  waste  time 
in  pointing  out  the  inconsistent  and  unequal  application  of  the  law  in  the  present 
case.  I  was  forbidden  by  the  Judge  to  testify  as  to  the  condition  of  Eno,  yet  I  alone 
knew  how  the  drug  had  not  affected  the  patient.  But  Drs.  Hubbell  and  Whedon 
were  permitted  to  divulge  all  the  information  which  they  had  obtained  from  Eno 
when  he  was  their  patient;  and  their  testimony  had  undoubted  weight  in  securing 
for  the  plaintiff  the  verdict  of  exorbitant  charges. 
The  Effect  on  the  Druggist. — That  Eaton  misread  a  reasonably  plain  description 
was  established  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  jury.  The  damages  assessed  were  simply 
enormous.  But  there  need  be  no  apprehension  felt  as  the  effect  on  the  young  man's 
business.  His  dearly  bought  experience  will  last  him  a  life  time.  Henceforth 
there  will  be  no  such  word  as  mistake  with  him.  Every  article  in  every  prescrip- 
tion will  be  scrutinized  with  a  care  hitherto  unknown  to  the  craft.    Public  confi- 
