833MEDICINE AND THE LAW.-PARIS

case of the potato variety Epicure, which is at oncethe most susceptible, one of the oldest, and mostvigorous variety of potato we have.

Conclusion

Although the incidence of virus disease in our

field and crops and glasshouses has undoubtedlyincreased, there is no reason for undue pessimism.What is needed is more research on virus diseasesand a closer understanding between the pathologistand the plant breeder. It is the latter who needsto realise that when by his breeding methods hegives us large and ever larger crops, bigger andwhiter fruits, and the like, he has almost certainlydiscarded en route a number of hereditary geneswhich alone or in combination with others may beresponsible for that vague but important character-constitution. ’

REFERENCES

Barnard, J. E. (1931) Proc. roy. Soc. Series B. 109, 360.— (1935) Brit. J. exp. Path. 16, 129.

Bawden, F., and other authors (1936) Nature, 131, 468.Baur, E. (1907) Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges. 25, 410.Bedson, S. P., and Bland, J. (1932) Brit. J. exp. Path. 13, 461.Beijerinck, M. W. (1899) Zbl. Bakt. 5, 27, 310.Botjes, J. G. O. (1920) Thesis, Wageningen.Cayley, D. M. (1928) Ann. appl. Biol. 15, 529.Chester, K. S. (1936) Phytopath. 26, 715.Eagles, G. H., and Kordi, A. H. (1932) Proc. roy. Soc. Series B.

3, 329.Findlay, G. M., and MacCullum, F. O. (1937) (in press) J. Path. Bact.Gardner, A. D. (1931) Microbes and Ultramicrobes, London, p.40Iwanowsky, D. (1899) Zbl. Bakt. 5, 250.Laidlaw, P. P., and Elford, W. J. (1936) Proc. roy. Soc. Series B.

120, 292.Loeffler and Frosch (1898) Zbl. Bakt. 23, 371.Mayer, A. (1886) Landw. Versuchsw. 22, 450.Salaman, R. N. (1932) Proc. roy. Soc. Series B. 110, 186.

— (1933) Nature, 131, 468.— and Le Pelley, R. (1930) Proc. roy. Soc. Series B. 106, 140.

Sheffield, Frances, and Smith, J. H. (1931) Ann. appl. Biol.18, 471.

Smith, E. (1888) U.S. Dept. Agr. Div. of Bot. Bull. No. 9.Smith, K. M. (1936) Sci. Progr. Twent. Cent. 119, 413.

— (1936b) Sci. Hort. 4, 126.Stanley, W. M. (1936) Phytopath. 26, 305.Swezy, Olive, and Severin, H. P. (1930) Ibid, 20, 169.Thung, T. H. (1931) Ned-Ind. Natur. Congr. Java, p. 450.Weissenberg, R. (1929) Z. Fortbild. 26, 555.

MEDICINE AND THE LAW

Unlicensed "Special Establishment"LAST December the public control committee of

the London County Council revoked the licence ofDr. Stavros Constantine Damoglou for carrying onan establishment for massage and special treatment.The decision seemed to be based in part on state-ments that he represented himself as able to cure

blindness in incurable cases. On being notified, hedisputed the Council’s authority; it extended, hemaintained, to masseurs only and not to personswith medical qualifications. He wrote that heintended to continue to treat his patients by methodsof his own invention, as he had done for the years1915 to 1931, without any licence. His patients, hesaid, consulted him as their last hope ; he wouldstand by them to bring them hope, relief, and inmany cases complete recovery. Dr. Damoglouhaving preferred to defy the Council rather than toexercise his right of appeal, the L.C.C. caused him tobe summoned on March 17th at the Marylebonepolice-court. It was admitted by the prosecution thatin certain cases of blindness due to nervous disorderthe defendant could be very helpful. As a medicalman he could carry on his establishment without alicence if he produced a certificate signed by tworegistered medical practitioners to the effect that hewas a suitable person. Dr. Damoglou, giving evidence,said that he was a fully qualified medical man. Heprotested that his was not a massage establishment

1 See Lancet, 1936, 2, 1482.

within the London County Council Act ; he treatedhis patients by solar ray and gave them advice upondiet ; the great majority received benefit and manywere cured. The magistrate imposed a fine of E10with costs, warning the defendant that, if he com-mitted the offence again, the maximum penalty ofE50 would be imposed.

Patient and Radiologist’s ReportThe Court of Appeal recently discussed the

question whether a doctor is obliged to allow a

patient to see a radiologist’s report. The point aroseon the appeal of Mrs. Rubra, widow and executrixof Dr. Henry Rubra, against the verdict of 95000damages awarded to Mrs. Connolly for allegednegligence on the part of Dr. Rubra in treatingMr. Connolly, who died of tuberculosis in 1933.During discussion in the Court of Appeal LordJustice Slesser referred to Mrs. Connolly’s request tosee a copy of the radiologist’s report ; she hadreceived what the judge called a misleading reply.Lord Justice Greene then inquired whether it was thepractice in the medical profession not to let thepatient see reports of this kind. Mr. ThomasCarthew, K.C., appearing for Mrs. Rubra, repliedthat many members of the profession regarded thesereports as confidential; it was, he added, in thediscretion of the general practitioner who had sentthe patient to the specialist to decide whether the

patient should see the report or not. Lord JusticeGreer, the president of the court, doubted if therewas any practice of keeping this information secret ;much must depend on the doctor’s view of the intelli-gence of his patient. As Mr. Carthew observed, apatient is in the hands of his doctor ; many patientsmight be seriously upset by being given the information.The appeal was not concluded before the Easter

vacation. When judgment is given, we hope todiscuss the case further. It has been a strikinginstance of the risks inherent in the new law wherebya personal action now no longer dies with the personconcerned. Mrs. Connolly’s claim in connexion withthe death of her husband was begun while Dr. Rubrawas still alive. Dr. Rubra was then in bad health ;he died not long afterwards. His widow obtainedleave to continue the defence. In denying the

allegations of negligence she may well feel that theposition of the defence is prejudiced by the death ofone who would have been the principal witness onthat side.

PARIS

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT)

SANATORIUMS OR SANATORIA

THE Anglo-Saxon observation that the Frenchwould rather be in the wrong than vague may bereconsidered in the light of a recent discussion inthe French medical press over the respective philo-logical merits of sanatoriums and sanatoria. Theindiscriminate and alternating use of both terms inthe Anglo-Saxon countries may perhaps be goodenough for their natives with their weakness forirrational compromise and inaccurate and nebulousimpartiality. The correspondence began with an

(as it proved) ill-advised attack on a writer who hadcommitted himself to sanatoriums. Why had he notgiven expression to his classical education by writingsanatoria ? z The fat was soon in the fire, and issuewas joined by numberless medical philologists endowedwith a classical education, spare time, lexicographiclibraries, and a sense of burning injustice, one way