the widdicombe file

1347

they have received, and from the opportunity they havehad of learning skill and practising it with a mixture ofsupervision and independence.

I am most grateful to my colleagues who have read and criticisedthe original draft of this article. I am even more grateful to those,inside and outside the department, past and present, who have builtup this programme so far.

REFERENCES

Balint, M. (1961) Lancet, ii, 1051.Ball, D. H., Wolff, H. H. To be published.Davies, T. T., Davies, E. T. L., O’Neill, D. (1958) Lancet, ii, 34.Garmany, G., Whiteley, J. S. (1961) ibid. ii, 38.Kehoe, M. (1961) ibid. p. 145.Lancet (1961) ii, 1141.Romano, J. (1961) ibid. p. 93.Stengel, E. (1961) ibid. p. 418.Tylden, E. (1961) ibid. p. 141.

Medicine and the Law

A. H. BRAYBarrister-at-Law

Ordinary Experience v. Technical OpinionA WIFE petitioned for divorce on the ground that her

husband was incurably of unsound mind and had beencontinuously under care and treatment for at least fiveyears immediately preceding the presentation of the

petition in July, 1960.In the following month, August, 1960, the husband, who

since 1948 had been under care and treatment at mental

hospitals, discharged himself from a mental hospital andreturned to the matrimonial home. The wife refused to receivehim since she regarded him as far from cured of his mentalillness, which took the form of delusions as to her own fidelity.Since August, 1960, the husband lived in the matrimonial homeseparate and apart from the wife and successfully looked afterhimself, managed his own affairs, and maintained himself inemployment. Evidence was given by a medical superintendentthat the husband had paranoia which was not cured at the dateof the trial, and was not curable. The husband himself gaveevidence which was accepted by Mr. Commissioner LATEY asthat of a truthful and credible witness, and the Commissionerdismissed the wife’s petition, holding that she had failed to dis-charge the burden of proof on her. The wife appealed.Lord Justice WILLMER said that the sole question was

whether the husband had been proved to have been ofunsound mind. His Lordship thought that the Com-missioner’s view of the husband’s demeanour was of the

highest importance. The husband’s state of mind both atthe date of the petition and the date of the trial had to beconsidered. The phrase " of unsound mind " and theword " incurably " were not medical terms, nor wordswhich medical experts found very easy to apply in relationto persons subject to mental illness. The inference wasirresistible that Parliament intended such questions to bedecided on broad grounds, as matters of common senseand ordinary experience, rather than as technical questionsof medical opinion. The opinions of medical experts,although great weight had to be given to them, were in nosense conclusive. The question of unsoundness of mindmust always be one of degree. Equally, the question ofcurability must be one of degree. The test of unsoundnessof mind for the purposes of the Matrimonial Causes Act1950 was whether the respondent could or could not lookafter himself and his affairs as a reasonable person would,particularly in regard to his social contacts and to themarried relationship. The term " incurably " had to beconstrued broadly just as in the case of physical illness. Itwould be highly unfair to this husband to condemn himas incurably of unsound mind merely because it was soobviously impossible for him to resume a proper married

relationship with his wife who had refused to have any-thing to do with him after his return. His Lordshipwould dismiss the appeal.Lord Justice DoNOVAN, concurring, said that the

questions were: (1) Was the husband of unsound mind;(2) If so, was it such as to make him incapable of managinghis own affairs, including his marriage, as a reasonableman would; (3) If so, was he also incurable. The first andthird question were predominantly, although not wholly,medical. The second widened the potential area ofrelevant facts well beyond the area of medical opinion.To make a touchstone out of demeanour where the witnesshad a long history of mental illness would be a dangerousproceeding, and it could not be said that there was noacceptable evidence of unsoundness of mind. But it wasdifficult to conclude that the husband could not lead anormal married life; no blame could be attributed toanybody, but how could it be said that he could not do sowhen he was confined, against his will, to the circum-stances of abnormality ? He would dismiss the appeal.Lord Justice DAVIES concurred.Webb v. Webb-Court of Appeal: Willmer, Donovan, and Davies, L.JJ.

May 21, 1962. Counsel and solicitors: R. J. Temple, Q.c., and Neil Taylor(W. B. Blackwell & Co.), Hugh Park, Q.c., and B. Holroyd Pearce (officialsolicitor).

The Widdicombe File

LXX.-BLOODDEAR GEORGE,

Blood is wot goes round in people ... and it is up toyou surgeons to see that this essential if monotonousfunction is maintained in the original owner. What hashappened to surgery in the last few years ? Are you fel-lows more clumsy than your predecessors, or is the strainof modem living making people bleed more ? Does thepatient really bleed four pints of blood (your normaldemand on the bank) during a gastrectomy, or is it maybeonly two or even one ? In that case what about two pintsfor replacement and two pints of plasma for shock ?I have it from a reliable source that the National BloodTransfusion Service is already bleeding one-sixth of thepopulation, and this must be saturation-point. Demandsfor fresh blood should be going down not up.Now it’s all very well to quote the Birmingham boys.

Their set-up must be unique and they are willing todefend it with their lives. At our last society meetingI announced that I didn’t believe in all this blood stuff.The Brum. lads were seized by a coarse tremor, and whenI finally pulled myself from under a mass of waving armsI was converted. It didn’t last though, and I’ve beenconverted twice since.

Since I suggested to that tall registrar of yours (youknow, the blond fellow who drives my girls ga-ga eachtime he comes into the lab.) that nobody should use thebank unless they personally donate a pint demands havelessened considerably. If I had my way the bottles, inaddition to the usual stuff, would have: " The propertyof Joe E. Smith, Plumber and Gasfitter, 86, PlumptonWay, Little Ickfield; given during his lunch hour, July 24,1962."

The usual twelve pints for next Friday ?Yours,

TOM.