This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Physicians, as a rule, carry policies of accident insurance which include a clause indemnifying them for loss of time in case of septic infection arising in the course of professional duty. It is doubtful whether, when buying such a contract, physicians are as careful as they should be to determine just what hazard is covered by the "septic poisoning clause." An item in The Spectator (insurance), for Oct. 26, 1905, indicates that neglect of this precaution may lead to later disappointment. It seems that these clauses, so important to surgeons, physicians and dentists are variously worded, so that the amount of protection varies. Some of them provide that, to render the company liable, the production of the wound and the entrance of the poison must be simultaneous. This debars a claim for indemnity in case the infection occurred in a pre-existing abrasion, wound or hangnail. It is said that in
INSURANCE AGAINST SEPSIS. JAMA. 1905;XLV(20):1503. doi:10.1001/jama.1905.02510200049009
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: