an autopsy was done. We feel that we have exhausted every possibility and ourselves in the work done on this one case alone. We consider it closed. I believe Mrs. Nielsen does not, and I do not think our Committee has done the Society a bit of good in this instance. Mrs. Nielsen is apparently a very disturbed individual who has been able to convince her husband that an injustice has been done them.
Most of the other complaints are about one or the other of us, including myself, about fairness of fees or methods by which we have handled various and sundry cases. We have been able to settle most of them, with the exception of the last few, about which further data are being collected. In every instance we have kept the complaint and the doctor involved informed of our actions at all times, to keep the record clear.
Typical is one complaint made by Mr. Oral Tucker against Dr. Marguerite Williams. In this case the Committee got involved in a church matter (Adventists). It is very involved and includes a lot of personal things between doctor and patient, many things which could or could not be construed as misplaced confidence, and involves professional ethics. This case has taken innumerable hours, and I do not believe we will arrive anywhere when we are done. Mr. Tucker feels that Dr. Williams has divulged professional secrets to the Minister and to the lay board of the church; that information she has had printed about him and written letters about him are things which she obtained from him when he was a patient. We talked this over with Dr. Williams and attempted to point out to her that we wanted to be of help in straightening this out because we do not want her to set the pace for the medical profession in town and do not want other church members to feel that she, as a member, is bringing discredit upon us. She promised that she would no longer divulge professional secrets, and we wrote Mr. Tucker to that effect, but since then Mrs. Tucker stated that Dr. Williams has continued to malign them, and the committee is right in the middle of an intra-church fight. This is a mess. We wrote Mr. Tucker stating that we felt we had done our duty when we admonished Dr. Williams, and told him that the only way we could take further action would be if it could be proved that Dr. Williams has not lived up to her agreement with us. So, he is busily collecting facts to prove this, and if he can we feel that the Committee should advise him he has a basis for legal suit against her. This seems to be the only way he can obtain what he feels is justice and retribution for what harm Dr. Williams has done him.
The remainder of these are all explained in the copy of our last minutes, which I will hand in when I give the chairmanship to Dr. Rudolph, along with the status of each case at that time.
Should there be any questions about the function of he Committee, I will be happy to answer them.
Dr. Costin--Have you heard any statements from the people involved as to how satisfactory they consider these settlements? Did they seem pleased or otherwise?
Dr. Hastings--Yes and No. Some express gratitude and others end by including us among those whom they do not like. One came in today out of which I got a chuckle. The patient made complaint about the size of the bill received. The Committee had gone over what Fred (Schutzbank) had done for them and said they considered his fee not exorbitant if the people felt it was within their ability to pay. Fred wrote me saying this family misinterpreted our letter and had sent him a check for $5.00 which they felt was in proportion to what they could pay for the treatment of their child!"
Dr. Leo J. Kent moved that the report of the Board of Censors be accepted. Motion was seconded by Dr. Daniel Bernstein, and carried.
