United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn)—I am of opinion that this appeal must be dismissed. The question is whether a particular dental practitioner has been guilty of professional misconduct and thus enabled his partner to cancel the arrangement between them. I do not think it in the least necessary to enter upon the legal question, interesting as it may be, which was discussed so much in the Court of Appeal. It seems to me to be a matter of indifference whether the order made by the General Medical Council be admitted in evidence or be excluded. What seems to me quite clear is this—that the form of advertisement which was sanctioned by the gentleman in question amounted in the circumstances to professional misconduct. I will not dwell upon the case. There was profuse advertisement in every form of self-praise and self-commendation on the part of this company and of those who carried on business under its authority. For the present purpose it is enough to say that there were two particular advertisements which I consider to be thoroughly discreditable, and to amount to professional misconduct of a serious and inexcusable kind. One of them was that which related to a suggestion that most, or nearly all, other dental practitioners omitted the necessary precaution of sterilising their instruments, whereas those who carried on the business of this company were careful not to omit that precaution. Now that was a peculiarly dangerous form of disparagement levelled against other practitioners, because it was not levelled against any one in particular, and therefore the falsity of it could not have been vindicated in any action. The second instance, which I deprecate still more strongly, is the report of an interview which appeared in the Review of Reviews, and contained the undisguised suggestion that in cases—I will not apply strictly the numerical test suggested in the Review—but in cases of English dentists it was at all events a not uncommon thing that disgraceful advantage should be taken by the operator, in the case of a woman, of the absence of some other woman to guard her honour. I can see nothing that can justify anything of that kind. It has all the elements of disgraceful imputation—it is so general that it cannot be denied, that it cannot be proved, and that it cannot be made the subject of investigation; yet it suggests to those who are sensitive about the honour of others who belong to them the most powerful motive to avoid other establishments and to seek relief from those who are engaged by this company, with the object and with the result of pecuniary profit. For my part, if this be not disgraceful conduct, if it be not professional misconduct, I know not what the terms mean.

Earl of Halsbury—I entirely agree.

Lord Macnaghten—I agree.

Lord Atkinson—I agree.