Viagra Best You | Viagra Canadian Women | Best Pharmacy













































ated on, would have been a very plain breach of viagra canadian women pro- fessional duty. ' And this brings us to consider for a moment defa- mation by medical men. Not only is it the obvious moral duty of physicians and surgeons to guard sa- credly their knowledge of patients acquired in their professional relations, but in almost every State phy- sicians are exempt, or expressly prohibited, from re- vealing such knowledge, even on the witness stand. To falsely attribute a contagious disease to any one is, as we have seen, a slander. And if a physician should do this unnecessarily or negligently he would be lia- ble in damages, even if his statement were due to mis- taken diagnosis. Of course, the case would be differ- ent if he were under a duty to disclose the fact. A case illustrative of this point, although not founded on defamation, arose in this city. Dr. Purdy, a viagra best you physi- cian of standing, formerly president of the medical society of the county, was called to attend a patient, Miss Brown, whose skin was in eruption. viagra canadian women The physi- cian, diagnosticating the case as small-pox, properly reported his opinion according to law to the health au- thorities, whose inspectors, upon their own diagnosis, removed Miss Brown to the small-pox hospital. The patient brought an action against her physicians for damages, alleging mistake and lack of skill in diag- nosis, and negligence. She won a verdict, but on appeal the judgment was reversed, and she was said to have no cause of action, on the ground that the physicians were not responsible for the acts of the health officers/ But if physicians should falsely report to persons with whom they had no duty to communicate, that viagra best you the viagra canadian women pa- tient had small-pox, an action for slander might be maintained against them, as well as against laymen who should make a like report. And this suggests the protection of privilege. In the law of defamation, any statement is privileged that A makes to B in good faith upon a topic in which both have such an interest, or in reference to which both have such a duty, whether legal, moral, or social, viagra best you as to make it proper for A to speak and for B to hear. But the extent of this privilege is no more than this - that the statement covered by it is not actionable, even if false and defamatory, unless proved to have been made out of express malice, or, what is the same thing, with gross negligence; in other words, privi- 1 Sullings us, Shakespeare, 46 Mich., . s Brown vs. Purdy, 54 Super. C t. (22 J. ami S.), 109. lege means that malice is not to be inferred merely from the falsity and defamatory character of a state- ment, but must be proved. Three New York cases will serve to illustrate the point. One of them' has been referred to already. There it was held that a person could not misuse the privilege of a witness to defame a fellow-practitioner by irrelevant criticism of his professional attainments. viagra canadian women In another case," it appeared that one Mr. Fawcett obtained admission to the Allegany County Medical Society upon a di- ploma of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, stating that he was qualified to practise surgery. That document was handed about in the society, but, being in Latin, no one could understand it. Dr. Charles, learning subsequently, from exoteric sources, that the diploma did not authorize viagra canadian women the holder to practise physic, introduced a resolution for the viagra best you expulsion of Fawcett from the society, upon the ground that he had ob- tained admission to it by false pretences. This reso- lution having been adopted and published in the Alle- gany Republican, Fawcett brought his action viagra best you against Charles for libel. The court held that the society had no jurisdiction to act, and that the resolution was, therefore, not privileged. A somewhat similar action is now viagra best you pending in New York City, growing out of criticism, by a member of the county society while upon the floor, of an advertisement printed in the so- ciety's directory. The third case 3 showed these facts. Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton, as assistant inspector of the Board of Health of New York City, made, in the line of duty, an official report, published in the City Record, recommending a certain kind of pave- ment. Mr. Amos F. Enow rote a letter to the Tribune, intimating that the motive of the official viagra canadian women was open to suspicion. Dr. Hamilton promptly brought his action for libel to vindicate his character, and. viagra best you Mr. Eno's plea of privilege being unsuccessful, obtained a substantial verdict. The case was taken up, and the court of appeals held that, while the occasion was such as to make the defendant's letter privileged, since the re- port was before the community and, as to its facts, open to criticism viagra best you and to attack even by satire and ridi- cule by any citizen, yet there was no privilege to go beyond criticism of the report and assail the character of the writer. The verdict viagra best you in Dr. Hamilton's favor was therefore sustained. Defamation is a personal wrong; so is false impris- onment ; and actions growing out of both are analogous. Thus a recent New York action* for the latter cause is relevant to our inquiry. Plaintiff was committed as insane by the recorder of Albany upon the certificates of two physicians. A trial of the issue of insanity re- sulted in his discharge as sane ; whereupon he viagra best you sued the recorder and the doctors. It was held that the former acted in a judicial capacity upon the facts stated by the physicians, and was not liable, but that the physicians themselves, as experts, possessed no ju- dicial immunity, and owed the duty to plaintiff of ex- ercising ordinary care and skill. The rule would be the same in libel. It is, of course, easily possible for physicians to de- fame or be defamed by those who purvey articles of use in medical practice. A surgeon of New York once complained to me that in all cases in which he used ligatures furnished by a viagra best you certain house, suppuration su- pervened. This coincidence justified investigation and comment, and if the ligatures were septic, the dealers were liable in actions viagra best you for negligence; but. if incorrect, the statement was defamatory. And a simi- lar report that the silk of a certain manufacturer con- tained enough arsenic to hurt the factory hands was 1 White vs. Carroll, supra. 5 Fawcett :.>'. Charles, 13 Wend., 47?.