I was speaking with a friend about Downton Abbey and Lady Mary Crawley's dilemma with the Turkish gentleman who, given his age, must have had a fatal arrrhythmia during intercourse. It reminded me of a similar little known, but celebrated circumstance a bit after the mid 20th century when I began to practice. The city was small at the time and medical practices were both tight and longitudinal so the same physicians attended families virtually from cradle to grave. As a result of this, patient and doctor loyalties were high. The doctor I refer to attended two carriage trade families who lived in the same neighborhood as him. One night he received a call at midnight from his patient, the wife of a prominent businessman, in a panic, that a friend of hers, had died in her bed. The man who died, a lawyer, was also the doctor's patient, a widower who had enjoyed a meal and later, congress with the lady since her husband was away on business. Unfortunately good living had rendered the older lawyer unfit for such action.
Faced with such a situation and the possible eruption of a scandal involving two of his patient's families, the doctor's dilemma arose. The man had clearly had a heart attack at the time. As a result the doctor and the lady, no doubt fueled by adrenaline at the time, carried the man to his car and transported him to his house, put him in new pajamas and tucked him into his bed. The doctor made a house call in the morning and called the coroner.
The question is of course, what is the moral imperative that contended with the legal requirement of the doctor? A physician has a duty to the country, his colleagues, and to his regulatory body to obey the law. He also owes a duty, to the welfare of his patients, whether dead or alive, and their privacy, at some personal cost if necessary. He risked his medical practice by illegal transport of a human body from the place of sudden death to cover up a truth! However, dead is dead and a bed is a bed. What was the harm? It would have been safer for the doctor to have avoided criticism by a self righteous tack. He took a chance in a small city where everyone knew everyone else's business, or thought they did.
Succor for the innocent of the families I suppose, and avoiding the trials and near disasters that befell Lady Mary. The secret was kept for years!
Faced with such a situation and the possible eruption of a scandal involving two of his patient's families, the doctor's dilemma arose. The man had clearly had a heart attack at the time. As a result the doctor and the lady, no doubt fueled by adrenaline at the time, carried the man to his car and transported him to his house, put him in new pajamas and tucked him into his bed. The doctor made a house call in the morning and called the coroner.
The question is of course, what is the moral imperative that contended with the legal requirement of the doctor? A physician has a duty to the country, his colleagues, and to his regulatory body to obey the law. He also owes a duty, to the welfare of his patients, whether dead or alive, and their privacy, at some personal cost if necessary. He risked his medical practice by illegal transport of a human body from the place of sudden death to cover up a truth! However, dead is dead and a bed is a bed. What was the harm? It would have been safer for the doctor to have avoided criticism by a self righteous tack. He took a chance in a small city where everyone knew everyone else's business, or thought they did.
Succor for the innocent of the families I suppose, and avoiding the trials and near disasters that befell Lady Mary. The secret was kept for years!
RSS Feed