Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

JEREMIAH LEAMING.

Mr. Leaming may be considered as a representative of the "solid" element of the bar of Chicago.

He was born at Dennisville, Cape May County, New Jersey, January 20, 1831. He studied law at Bordentown, Burlington County, New Jersey, and in June, 1856, was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of New Jersey. In August, 1856, he was, on certificate, admitted to the Supreme Court of Illinois, and about that time commenced practice in this City.

It will be seen that Mr. Leaming is one of the oldest practitioners at our bar. For many years the firm was Leaming and Thompson, the partner being our well known townsman, Col. Richard L. Thompson. Office, 142 Dearborn St.

Fully thirty years ago, we knew Mr. Leaming well, and often met him in business relations. What he was then, in mental and moral characteristics, he is now; the only difference is in intellectual caliber and acquirements, and in the position which he holds in the profession, a position which he has attained, not by any sudden flight, nor by any combination of fortuitous circumstances, but by constant, steady labor, by holding every advanced position, and making it a stepping stone to one still higher.

Mr. Leaming has paid particular attention to the law of real estate, and to the examination of titles. Probably no attorney's opinion upon an abstract of title would be considered more reliable.

In preparing his cases for trial, he leaves no point uncovered, no position unguarded.

The story is told, that a young advocate, traveling in England once with an experienced barrister, famous for winning his cases in court, offered him £5 to tell him the secret of his success. The offer was accepted, and the secret was imparted in a confidential tone, thus: "Good witnesses." When, as

they were drawing to their journey's end, the barrister asked his young friend for the £5, he was met by the reply, "Where are your witnesses?"

Mr. Leaming always has his witnesses. If he has not got them, he keeps out of court.

He enjoys the most unlimited confidence of his associates and friends. He was a candidate of the democratic party for Circuit Judge in 1886, but was defeated by a certain combination of the labor and other elements inside and outside of his party; a combination made with reference to other candidates, but with whose defeat he became involved. He is considered by the bar available for still higher judicial position, having been frequently mentioned as candidate for the Supreme Court.

Department of Medical Jurisprudence.

SOME MEDICO-LEGAL ASPECTS OF ANESTHESIA.

READ BEFORE THE MEDICO-LEGAL SOCIETY OF CHICAGO, DEC., 1888, BY EDWARD B. WESTON, M. D., CHICAGO.

The introduction of ether and chloroform for artificial anæsthesia, added a new class of cases to legal medicine.

At first there was not only a want of more than superficial knowledge of the action of the drugs, of the proper methods of administering them, and of the patients to whom they might be obnoxious, but the criminal classes at once saw in them the means for, or aids in, the commission of crime.

In the early days of their use, the surgeon and physician must have employed them with fear and trembling, both for the safety of the patient, and for his own safety in case of accident to the former. But now the anesthetizer in using the common agents, ether, chloroform, nitrous oxide or the a. c. e. mixture, begins his work almost with temerity. The action of the drugs being well known, and the physical condition of the patient having been ascertained, the physician must use, as in all his work, "ordinary skill."

If suits for damages have become less frequent, in consequence of the knowledge of anesthetics, gained from years of experience, and by a knowledge of the extent to which they can be used for criminal purposes, they have not disappeared, and still are of great interest in medical jurisprudence.

The subject may be considered in two general divisions:

1. Those cases in which an anesthetic has been used in medicine, lawfully.

2. Those cases in which an anesthetic has been used criminally.

The second division may be again divided: (a), cases in medieine where it was used criminally; (b), cases where it was used as a means for suicide; (c), cases where it was used for the purpose of robbery, rape, murder, or other crime.

There may also be other cases, in which medico-legal questions might arise; for instance, where a person had administered an anesthetic to himself for its intoxicating effects; and where it had been administered for the detection of crime.

We will first briefly consider that division of the subject including those cases in which the anesthetic has been used in medicine lawfully.

It cannot be expected that agents with qualities which render a person so completely insensible, mentally and physically, to all external impressions, can be used incautiously; or that the person using, or administering them, does not assume the most serious responsibility.

The physician administering an anesthetic, or responsible for the same, runs the same risk of a suit for malpractice that the doctor does in prescribing, or the surgeon in operating.

In case an operation is to be performed, the person giving the anaesthetic should be legally and actually as well qualified for his duty as the operator himself. Often, however, in an emergency, and especially in the country, a skilled anesthetist cannot be got, and the physician has to trust the sponge to the most intelligent layman at hand. In such case the physician in charge would not be liable, to the same degree, should accident occur. But if possible, a responsible assistant should always be obtained to give the anesthetic.

If injury or death follow the administration of an anesthetic by a legally qualified physician, or by a person not legally qualified, while giving an anesthetic by invitation of, and under the direction of a qualified physician, the first question to be decided would be, what was the cause of death? Was it the anæsthetic, or some coincident cause? If by careful inquiry,

by post-mortem examination and otherwise, it should be decided that the anesthetic was the cause, the question would then be asked, Did the administrator use "ordinary skill?"

What do we here mean by "ordinary skill?" The person using the anaesthetic agent, being legally qualified, must know the action to be expected from the agent employed, on a person both in a state of health and of disease. He must be competent to decide whether it be safe to administer any anæsthetic to the person presented for anesthesia, and if so, which is the suitable agent to use. He must know how to give it in the manner recognized as correct, and so give it. In case of accident, he must know and have at hand, and skillfully apply, the proper remedies. In case of accident he will be interrogated on these points, and the law will hold him responsible for the use of "ordinary skill."

The question may come up, as to whether a given operation was of sufficient gravity to justify the use of the particular anaesthetic administered. As when death had resulted from chloroform, given for tooth extraction, when the nitrous oxide might have been used.

In case of a person found dead, under circumstances which prove that he died from chloroform, or other anesthetic, administered to himself, the question-and an important one it is would arise, did he take it with suicidal intent, or to relieve pain, or to produce sleep, or for the silly purpose of producing intoxication or exhilaration from partial anesthesia?

It is possible that anesthesia may sometimes be produced to aid in criminal abortion, or to conceal the same. The woman might testify that the anesthetic was given for a different purpose; and she would not be able to swear as to what was done; or possibly even to identify the operator. Of course her wish would be to conceal the crime, and shield the criminal.

If she die under suspicious circumstances, an inquest and thorough investigation would disclose the cause of death, even though the criminal might not be brought to justice.

It is now known that an anesthetic cannot be used as an aid in the commission of crime, to the extent formerly believed. Chloroform is the anesthetic generally used for criminal pur

« ZurückWeiter »