_{First pieces of advice: On matters of the flesh and religion}

The history of medicine and dentistry in the latter part of the 19^th century and the beginning of the 20^th century is peppered with curious cases, with the practice just about professionalised in 1858 with the Medical Act.

Most of the initial cases brought to the attention of the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland (MDDUS) were advisory.

An early example is of a doctor who attended the confinement of a young woman. She happened to have given birth a bit too soon: seven months after getting married.

A local Kirk Session — a governing body within the Church of Scotland — asked him to produce a certificate to the effect that the baby had been conceived out of wedlock.

But he wanted no part in this, admittedly, non-medical matter.

MDDUS supported him in his stance.

First prosecution: “Nothing wrong with pretending to be a dentist”

A press article from May 1904 refers to the case of an “Unqualified Dentist” as the “First prosecution by the Defence Union”.

A Robert Robertson was charged “that he did, by public advertisement in the newspapers, ‘pretend to be, or take or use the name or title of surgeon dentist”.

According to Mr Finlay, the MDDUS’s lawyer, Robertson had been “moving about from place to place doing this though he gave me a personal undertaking in January to cease the practice”

The accused pleaded not guilty, on the basis that “it was no contravention to pretend to be a surgeon dentist”. His representative also questioned that “the Defence Union had no title to sue”.

Looking at the first argument, writes the reporter, the defence “was bad on this point”. “Undoubtedly it was not a contravention to ‘pretend’ so long as nothing else followed.”

On the second point, the court said that the Union was entitled to prosecute.

Long story short, the accused changed his plea to guilty and was ordered to withdraw the advertisement, as well as pay a fine of £5.

First case considered: Reaching for help after the fact

The first medico-legal case the MDDUS considered at its inaugural Central Committee Meeting in January 1903 involved a GP, Dr John Cunningham, sued by a woman for the death of her husband.

Read also: The surprising origin of medical defence

The deceased, 52-year-old joiner Andrew Gillies from Stewarton, in Ayrshire, had suffered an injury to his arm, for which the doctor advised manipulation under anaesthesia.

The procedure took place in his own home, under chloroform. What happened next was a matter of debate, with conflicting accounts from various witnesses. In the end, Mr Gillies did not survive it. The cause listed in the death certificate is stated as “syncope” (commonly understood today to mean fainting, or a loss of blood flow to the brain).

The plaintiffs argued that the way the doctor administered the chloroform was outdated, and that he should have had, but did not, both a skilled medical assistant and resuscitation equipment.

As it happened, the doctor had only applied for membership when he was sued – the incident had occurred some six months earlier. MDDUS resolved that it could not assist him. Cunningham decided, however, to retain the MDDUS’ law agents.

The case, which was also the first involving anaesthesia in Scotland, was decided in favour of the doctor. The jury took only 45 minutes to reach a unanimous decision.

First “celebrity” case: a suffragist accused of conspiracy

Purves v Gilchrist and Carswell was the first major legal case successfully defended by MDDUS.

It involved a high-profile defendant: Dr Marion Gilchrist, the first woman to qualify as a doctor in Scotland, with a degree from the University of Glasgow.

Gilchrist was also a passionate suffragist, campaigning for women’s rights throughout her life. She became a founding member of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Association of Women’s Suffrage in 1902.

Only two years later, she would find herself in the courtroom alongside another practitioner, Dr Carswell, accused of conspiring with the wife of a man to have him committed to a mental hospital.

The man, a Mr William Purves, had been released from the institution after a successful appeal and was now accusing Gilchrist and Carswell – who happened to be his wife’s GP – of sending him to the asylum without proper examination.

MDDUS successfully argued the case on behalf of the defendants.

---

This page was correct at the time of publication. Any guidance is intended as general guidance for members only. If you are a member and need specific advice relating to your own circumstances, please contact one of our advisers.