[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 31, 1894


JAMA. 1894;XXII(13):464. doi:10.1001/jama.1894.02420920020001g

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


In the March 17, 1894, number of this JOURNAL, John A. Sterling, Esq., ably treats "The Medical Expert Witness," On page 378, column 2, line 46, he writes: "If it were possible to have a jury of twelve medical men in all cases where medical evidence is required, then the medical expert would be unnecessary." I think not, but that he would be needed more than under our present American system of medical jurisprudence, which for more than a generation has been an opprobrium medicoram. This opprobrium can not be changed because the bar does not want it. Well do I remember the efforts made some thirty years ago to change this system, which were led by my late honored and honorable teacher, Prof. R. E. Rogers of the University of Pennsylvania. Probably there never was a more eloquent lecturer in a medical college. He made the dry subject of

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview