Medical Interviews on the President’s Case

     It is deeply deplorable that President McKinley’s assassination should have been regarded by many physicians as a pretext for personal exploita- [455][456] tion in the form of “interviews” in the daily press. So-called “opinions,” based on newspaper accounts, prepared by lay minds for the elucidation of the lay public, can hardly be considered of much value, and when the “opinion” is evidently of secondary importance (to judge from the display type used in printing the doctor’s name), the proceeding approaches dangerously near the methods of quackery.
     A physician in attendance upon a public man may be justified in issuing a statement to the press, if only to prevent the publication of misleading views evolved from the inner consciousness of the reporter: in such a contingency, however, he should have the consent of the patient or the patient’s relatives. Under no circumstances should a consultant or assistant divulge any facts whatsoever; his failure to keep silence can only be regarded as a serious breach of professional secrecy.