Van Sickle v. Doolittle
| Decision Date | 25 October 1918 |
| Docket Number | 32278 |
| Citation | 169 N.W. 141,184 Iowa 885 |
| Parties | THOMAS H. VAN SICKLE, Administrator, Appellee, v. M. E. DOOLITTLE, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sioux District Court.--WILLIAM HUTCHINSON, Judge.
ACTION for damages consequent on alleged malpractice resulted in judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Snell & Randall and C. E. Gantt, for appellant.
C. A Plank and Shull, Gill, Sammis & Stilwill, for appellee.
Marjorie Van Sickle died September 20, 1911, at age of nine years and some months. The defendant attended her as a physician during her last sickness. The petition alleged that he failed to exercise ordinary care and skill in effecting a cure for the ailment with which the child was afflicted, in that (1) he neglected to visit her with such frequency as her condition demanded, and did not respond with promptness when called, (2) failed to exercise ordinary care and skill in treating the patient for such ailment, and (3) omitted to administer proper medicines and skillful treatment, and neglected to do anything for her relief and cure when it became apparent that she was in a dangerous and precarious condition.
The facts appear in the opinion on the former appeal, and need not be repeated. 173 Iowa 727. The defendant belonged to the homeopathic school of medicine, and the treatment given the child must be measured by the rules and requirements of practitioners in that school.
As was pointed out on the former appeal, homeopathy and allopathy do not much differ in matters relating to anatomy, physiology chemistry, pathology, surgery, and obstetrics. In materia medica, therapeutics, and the principles and practice of medicine, the schools differ, and somewhat radically in medicines and the methods of using or administering them.
Several errors are assigned, but only rulings on the admissibility of evidence need be reviewed.
I. E. W. Meis, a regularly licensed physician of the allopathic school, of 17 years' experience, testified that a preparation composed of one part of aconite and 999 parts of alcohol and water and one part of gelsemium diluted to the same degree, given in doses of from 4 to 7 drops, at intervals of one-half hour to an hour and one half, to a child 9 years old, as these were administered, would not have any physiological effect; and that bryonia diluted to one part of bryonia to 999 parts of alcohol and water, in doses from 4 to 6 drops in a teaspoon of water, and given every hour or two, as these were administered, would not have any effect on a child 9 years old. In a hypothetical question, the history of the case was then recited, and the doctor was asked, "Should the child have been given medicine that would have had some physiological effect on her body?" This was objected to, on the ground, among others, that the witness had not shown himself qualified to express an opinion concerning homeopathic treatment, or whether a physiological result was sought. The objection was overruled, and the doctor answered, "Well, of course, I don't know the exact way, the homeopathic way, of the treatment." The question was restated, and he answered, "Yes, sir."
The objection should have been sustained. The physician merely gave his opinion as to what treatment should have been given according to the allopathic school of medicine. Notwithstanding his expressed ignorance of the homeopathic way, he was allowed to answer. The error is the more apparent from the testimony of defendant and Dr. Hanchette, a physician of the homeopathic school of 28 years' experience. The latter testified that homeopathists treated not diseases, but for conditions or symptoms of diseases; that their system was to administer small doses that would never produce physiological effect; that they take the totality of symptoms, and treat the symptoms in a disease. In calling a physician, a person is presumed to elect that the treatment shall be according to the system or school of medicine to which such physician belongs, and it would be unfair to measure such treatment by any...
To continue reading
Request your trial