In England Now
1
274 In England Now The older I become the more often I travel, and I am beginning to fancy myself as something of an authority on international variations in accommodation. Hotel rooms in North America do not differ greatly one from the other, and the traveller who has awakened panic-stricken in a Toronto hotel room believing that he has forgotten to leave Salt Lake City the previous morning is one to whom both sympathy and understanding can be extended. However, in the bathroom variations of an intriguing sort can still be found. My childhood was traumatic as far as bathing was concerned; I still remember the brass geyser of uncertain temperament which presided over our bathroom. It was fired by a roaring circle of coal-gas jets, and in return gave forth a trickle of tepid bathwater. If water was used elsewhere in the house the supply to the geyser was cut off, and the whole machine glowed rapidly to a sullen red heat. Starting the monster involved a not very minor explosion, and once I was taken to see a house, the wall of which had been blown away by such a geyser one Saturday night. Consequently we only bathed when my father was at home, and the whole business seemed about as safe as removing the fuse from an unexploded bomb. In adult life I find myself somewhat surprised and relieved at the ease with which one can get a bath, but there are still variations. I have spent a happy half-hour in a Winnipeg hotel trying to get an extremely modern waste-plug to function. Its system of levers was obviously ingenious but quite unapproachable unless one first removed the bath. In Denmark I met the most complicated hot/cold shower system I have ever encountered. It was located on the far side of the tub, and to get at it one had to lean across in direct line with about six high-pressure jets. I am not mechanically gifted, but quite inquisitive, and I retired from that encounter fully clothed and soaked to the skin. In a very expensive hotel in the United States the plumbing did not work at all. The only other occasion I have been confronted with this situation was in France just after the war. The manager of the American hotel did not find the comparison at all amusing. Nowhere else can one attain the superb sense of luxury which is possible in Malaysia. Here in country districts the bath-house used to contain, and I hope that it still does, a man-sized earthenware pitcher. This was filled with warm water, and one climbed in for a quiet wallow, more hot water being added when required. The only other system which can compare with this is the Finnish sauna. The conclusion is clear-the more simple the method, the greater is likely to be one’s enjoyment of it. The only thing I have against the sauna is that the acoustics are sometimes poor, and my renderings of carefully chosen excerpts from the Puccini operas are less impressive than usual. * * . The Great Reprint Mystery: part the nth. Police south of the Thames are baffled by a deluge of requests for copies of a paper about vincristine. Flummoxed they approach a private firm in Adam Street. No problem, the modus operandi was recognised immediately. A few weeks earlier a bag of dental instruments had been handed in at a Kent police station, and, anxious to restore the bag to its owner, a member of the station staff placed a letter in the appropriate specialty journal. But nothing escapes the eye of Current Contents, and in due course the letter was indexed. Our helpful policeman’s name is not an uncommon one and side by side with his came another almost the same. A few careless secretaries later and ... What we’d like to know now is whether the residents of Indianapolis have been plagued by Kentish parking tickets. Medicine and the Law Doctor to Disclose Driver’s Identity A DOCTOR treated a man at evening surgery and then, at his request, treated a girl who said that she had been involved in a car accident. The doctor advised both patients to visit the police but did not seek their consent to disclose their identity to the police. Some three weeks later a police officer asked the doctor to divulge the name and address of either or both patients, or to give such information which could lead to the police discovering them. The request was made because a stolen car had been involved in an accident on the day when the doctor treated the patients, the driver and passengers had run away immediately after the crash, and the driver was alleged to be guilty of dangerous driving. Since the car- owner could not give the information, the requirement was made of the doctor as being " any other person [who] shall if required ... give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to the identification of the driver ", under section 168(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, 1972. The doctor undisputedly had in his possession information which might have led to the driver’s identification, but he refused then and later in writing to divulge the information on the ground that it was a professional confidence and to do so would be a breach of the professional conduct principle of refraining from disclosing voluntarily to a third party information learnt directly or indirectly in professional relationship with a patient, subject to excep- tions including the patient giving consent and the informa- tion being required by law. He was convicted of an offence under section 168 and fined E5. He appealed on the ground that he was not within the words " any other person ", which were not to be construed as having an unrestricted meaning so as to cause a doctor to act in breach of the duty of confidence on which the patient was entitled to rely, and not within the words " in his power " because power must include a legal right, and he had no legal right to disclose. Mr Justice BOREHAM said that the court’s first duty was to look at the Act and give the words their ordinary, natural meaning and, in the absence of equivocation or ambiguity, to give effect to such meaning unless something in the context of section 168 of the Act of 1972 suggested that a special or restricted meaning should be given to them. There was no ground for saying that a restricted meaning should be given to the words " any other person ", which were clear and unambiguous. His Lordship was driven to the conclusion that a doctor acting within his professional capacity and carrying out his professional responsibility was within the words " any other person " in section 168. As to " power ", no definition would be attempted, it was an ordinary word, and there was no doubt that a practi- tioner in the circumstances in which the doctor found himself had the power. It begged the question to say that, but for section 168, he would not have exercised the power because of his duty to his patient. It was comforting to think that the section was wide enough to give the police as wide a power as possible in the hope of detecting people who, stealing cars and disappearing after accidents, might cause untold harm to others, and that the doctor only had to disclose information which might lead to identification and which was not otherwise confidential. The result was within the rules of doctors’ professional conduct code. Mr Justice MAY agreed, the Lord Chief Justice gave a concurring judgment, and the appeal was dismissed with a certificate that a point of law of general public importance
Transcript of In England Now
274
In England Now
The older I become the more often I travel, and I am
beginning to fancy myself as something of an authority oninternational variations in accommodation. Hotel roomsin North America do not differ greatly one from the other,and the traveller who has awakened panic-stricken in aToronto hotel room believing that he has forgotten toleave Salt Lake City the previous morning is one to whomboth sympathy and understanding can be extended.However, in the bathroom variations of an intriguing
sort can still be found. My childhood was traumatic asfar as bathing was concerned; I still remember the brassgeyser of uncertain temperament which presided over ourbathroom. It was fired by a roaring circle of coal-gasjets, and in return gave forth a trickle of tepid bathwater.If water was used elsewhere in the house the supply to thegeyser was cut off, and the whole machine glowed rapidlyto a sullen red heat. Starting the monster involved a notvery minor explosion, and once I was taken to see a house,the wall of which had been blown away by such a geyserone Saturday night. Consequently we only bathed whenmy father was at home, and the whole business seemedabout as safe as removing the fuse from an unexplodedbomb. In adult life I find myself somewhat surprised andrelieved at the ease with which one can get a bath, butthere are still variations.
I have spent a happy half-hour in a Winnipeg hoteltrying to get an extremely modern waste-plug to function.Its system of levers was obviously ingenious but quiteunapproachable unless one first removed the bath. InDenmark I met the most complicated hot/cold shower
system I have ever encountered. It was located on thefar side of the tub, and to get at it one had to lean across indirect line with about six high-pressure jets. I am not
mechanically gifted, but quite inquisitive, and I retiredfrom that encounter fully clothed and soaked to the skin.In a very expensive hotel in the United States the plumbingdid not work at all. The only other occasion I have beenconfronted with this situation was in France just after thewar. The manager of the American hotel did not find thecomparison at all amusing.Nowhere else can one attain the superb sense of luxury
which is possible in Malaysia. Here in country districtsthe bath-house used to contain, and I hope that it still
does, a man-sized earthenware pitcher. This was filledwith warm water, and one climbed in for a quiet wallow,more hot water being added when required. The onlyother system which can compare with this is the Finnishsauna. The conclusion is clear-the more simple the
method, the greater is likely to be one’s enjoyment of it.The only thing I have against the sauna is that the acousticsare sometimes poor, and my renderings of carefully chosenexcerpts from the Puccini operas are less impressive thanusual.
* * .
The Great Reprint Mystery: part the nth. Police southof the Thames are baffled by a deluge of requests for
copies of a paper about vincristine. Flummoxed theyapproach a private firm in Adam Street. No problem, themodus operandi was recognised immediately. A few weeksearlier a bag of dental instruments had been handed in at aKent police station, and, anxious to restore the bag to itsowner, a member of the station staff placed a letter in theappropriate specialty journal. But nothing escapes the
eye of Current Contents, and in due course the letter wasindexed. Our helpful policeman’s name is not an uncommonone and side by side with his came another almost thesame. A few careless secretaries later and ... What we’dlike to know now is whether the residents of Indianapolishave been plagued by Kentish parking tickets.
Medicine and the Law
Doctor to Disclose Driver’s IdentityA DOCTOR treated a man at evening surgery and then,
at his request, treated a girl who said that she had beeninvolved in a car accident. The doctor advised both
patients to visit the police but did not seek their consentto disclose their identity to the police. Some three weekslater a police officer asked the doctor to divulge the nameand address of either or both patients, or to give suchinformation which could lead to the police discoveringthem. The request was made because a stolen car hadbeen involved in an accident on the day when the doctortreated the patients, the driver and passengers had runaway immediately after the crash, and the driver wasalleged to be guilty of dangerous driving. Since the car-owner could not give the information, the requirement wasmade of the doctor as being " any other person [who] shallif required ... give any information which it is in his powerto give and may lead to the identification of the driver ",under section 168(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, 1972. Thedoctor undisputedly had in his possession informationwhich might have led to the driver’s identification, but herefused then and later in writing to divulge the informationon the ground that it was a professional confidence and todo so would be a breach of the professional conduct
principle of refraining from disclosing voluntarily to a
third party information learnt directly or indirectly in
professional relationship with a patient, subject to excep-tions including the patient giving consent and the informa-tion being required by law. He was convicted of anoffence under section 168 and fined E5. He appealed onthe ground that he was not within the words " any otherperson ", which were not to be construed as having anunrestricted meaning so as to cause a doctor to act inbreach of the duty of confidence on which the patient wasentitled to rely, and not within the words " in his power
"
because power must include a legal right, and he had nolegal right to disclose.Mr Justice BOREHAM said that the court’s first duty was
to look at the Act and give the words their ordinary, naturalmeaning and, in the absence of equivocation or ambiguity,to give effect to such meaning unless something in thecontext of section 168 of the Act of 1972 suggested that aspecial or restricted meaning should be given to them.There was no ground for saying that a restricted meaningshould be given to the words " any other person ", whichwere clear and unambiguous. His Lordship was driven tothe conclusion that a doctor acting within his professionalcapacity and carrying out his professional responsibilitywas within the words " any other person " in section 168.As to " power ", no definition would be attempted, it wasan ordinary word, and there was no doubt that a practi-tioner in the circumstances in which the doctor foundhimself had the power. It begged the question to say that,but for section 168, he would not have exercised the powerbecause of his duty to his patient. It was comforting tothink that the section was wide enough to give the policeas wide a power as possible in the hope of detecting peoplewho, stealing cars and disappearing after accidents, mightcause untold harm to others, and that the doctor only hadto disclose information which might lead to identificationand which was not otherwise confidential. The resultwas within the rules of doctors’ professional conductcode.
Mr Justice MAY agreed, the Lord Chief Justice gave aconcurring judgment, and the appeal was dismissed witha certificate that a point of law of general public importance
