Intelligence

Several items last week made intelligent physicians ponder their relations to the press.

In Manhattan, Dr. C. Everett Field, director of the Radium Institute of New York, had vexed many physicians by advocating a cancer-cure nostrum of one Dr. William F. Koch of Detroit. Dr. Field's advocacy was the more dangerous because of the wide press publicity recently accorded his claimed ability to transmute diamond tints (TIME, Aug. 23). But, besides Dr. George A. Soper, who spoke officially as director of the American Society for the Control of Cancer, only two Manhattan physicians openly opposed Dr. Field's claims. They were Dr. David Bryson Delavan, a director of the American Society for the Control of Cancer, and Dr. Robert Tuttle Morris, emeritus professor of Surgery of the Post-Graduate Medical School. Lesser men talked with confidentially candid contempt. But only under promise that their names be not mentioned. They feared that their ethical confreres would charge them with publicity seeking.

In Rome, Dr. Marco Porzio, great surgeon, was quoted as denouncing U. S. surgeons for "permitting" Rudolph Valentino to die (TIME, Aug. 30), after a mere "appendicitis" operation. The fact is, Rudolph Valentino died of septicaemia (blood poisoning) after the perforation of a gastric (stomach) ulcer. Polyclinic Hospital officials had not realized that many people were as interested in the cinema-man's disease as in his personality. Indeed, so gauntly meagre were the hospital bulletins that an Italian correspondent cabled Mr. Valentino's malady as "appendicitis." Dr. Porzio was deceived. But no one in the U. S. explained away his misconception until good-natured Surgeon Charles Horace Mayo of Rochester, Minn., roused himself. He knew himself eminent beyond all criticism. He spoke out. Others commented subsequently.

In Manhattan, the Valentino case had given Bernarr Macfadden's Evening ("porno") Graphic opportunity to drool libidinously. According to its headlines and full- full-page accounts, Rudolph Valentino had been poisoned by a jealous female, had been pummeled by a jealous male, had been shot in a supper-club quarrel.

In London, Sir William Arbuthnot Lane, surgeon, authority on intestinal disorders (TIME, Dec. 7), found his photograph printed on 40,000 menus of Lyons restaurants.* The printing was done without his knowledge. He needs no such publicity. Nor does such publicity injure his reputation, nor curtail his skill. None the less, the British Medical Association denounced him, even though he had resigned from it a year ago because of professional criticism of his disease prevention work./- At this time Sir William simply folded his hands and declared: "In England, if any one writes to the newspapers and signs his name, the so-called ethical committee comes down on him and asks what business he has to educate the public. It is a self-constituted body with no right to exist, which writes rude, insulting letters to people. In America you can write freely to the newspapers, educating the people."

Sir William, last winter an observant visitor to the U.S., is wrong. The U.S. doctor does not write freely to the newspapers. And reputable newspapers often complain that it is not easy to get information from U.S. doctors.

A year ago, in New Orleans, a paper began a column of medical information--how to diaper the baby, what to do before the doctor arrives, the difference between a boil and a carbuncle. The editor wished to be certain that such a column would really help in educating his public in health matters. He despatched letters to all the medical men in his circulation territory, asking their advice. Not a reply reached him for several days. Then one, the first, came from Dr. Rudolph Matas, than whom there is no greater surgeon in all the South.* He approved the newspaper's medical information. It helped pre-educate the physician's patients, and thereby made his work less difficult. The editor might print the letter. He did so, and at once hundreds of approving letters came from the lesser medicos of the neighborhood. Dr. Matas was big enough to break a professional convention.

The teaching of health information to the public is a serious matter. People want to know about diseases and how to cure them. They are vitally interested, and, because they are interested, newspapers tend to print every scrap of medical information which they can secure. More and more doctors, of those who have pondered this question of furnishing medical intelligence to the public, have decided that it is wise to do so. They hold themselves ready for interviews. When a newspaperman, frankly ignorant of medical minutiae, comes to such doctors for some sidelight on a current event, they patiently explain. To them the interview is not a matter of getting their names into print, of overleaping a confrere's practice. Their sole aim is to make certain that the medical news which the public can digest is accurate.

As a result of this eagerness of the public--and hence of newspapers --for medical "news" the "ethics" of the doctor who will not talk for publication are coming to be regarded in a different light, may, someday, be regarded as Pharisaical.

*The largest restaurant chain in great Britain. The menu also carried an article, "The Athlete's Diet," by him. In the U.S., Child's restaurant bill-of-fares note the calories and vitamines in the foods catered. Lunchers enjoy knowing such facts, although they may not know what to do with the knowledge.

/- Not all medicos of Great Britain belong to this association. But every one must practice under the aegis of the General Medical Council, which has governmental authority to forbid the practice of medicine. (For a report of the Axham case, where this power was invoked, see TIME, April 19.)

* Born 1860 at New Orleans of Spanish ancestry; educated in Spain, France and the U. S.