Mudds aim to clear name of doc who treated Lincoln killer

[Houmes]

(07-28-2015 06:54 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Just legally, since Booth and Herold showed up after the assassination, and JWB was his patient, wouldn't Dr. Mudd anyway have been bound by medical confidentiality and the Hippocratic Oath to not to inform the government officials? (While not bound when it came to prevent.)

I'll be the first to admit I'm not an attorney, but I have had experience in clinical practice, have served as an expert witness, and for a time was a member of both a hospital ethics committee and a state medical board which licensed and disciplined physicians.

First, the Hippocratic Oath is traditionally used to instill ethical standards and taking the oath is a rite of passage for graduating medical students. It is rarely used today in the United States, although it was common in 1865. In 1989 only three U.S. medical schools used the original oath, while others employed similar oaths which had been updated with similar intent. Two schools at that time didn't use any oath(!). A code of ethics in the U.S. was formulated in 1847 by the American Medical Association, but this--like the Hippocratic Oath--was concerned to protect patient/doctor confidentiality for medical treatments. There was no movement otherwise for medical confidentiality as a legal obligation until the late 19th century.

Second, most states today have some form of legal requirement for physicians to report to law enforcement gunshot/stab wounds/life-threatening injuries, acts of domestic violence and child abuse, impaired patients about to leave a clinic/hospital and drive anywhere, or a real concern when a patient threatens harm or death to a particular person or persons.

I would be interested in an attorney's view of Mr. Booth's rights in this manner, and compare 19th century and current thought.

And for Laurie, I don't know what the University of Maryland used in 1865, but they "traditionally" used the Oath and Prayer of Maimonides.