Who Cares for the Broken Legged?
A public dispute arises over whether the city physician is obligated to treat emergency cases.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Speaking of the case of tardy attendance upon a man suffering from a broken leg, Health Officer Palmer states that it is no part of his duty to attend 'emergency cases.' He argues that while he is in the habit of responding when called, he does not feel it is incumbent upon him to provide a substitute when he leaves the city. He claims it is the legal duty of the county to care for unfortunates who require immediate services. Such a state of affairs in an enlightened community is disgraceful. If no provision has been made for medical attendance in emergency cases, a grave duty has been neglected. It should be someone's official duty to render these services, and that someone should clearly understand that it is his duty.
“Such a state of affairs in an enlightened community is disgraceful.”
The bureaucratic buck-passing between city and county regarding medical care for the indigent is a perennial issue in municipal governance. This 1894 struggle over liability echoes contemporary arguments over public health funding and the safety net in modern Seattle.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.