Case 19. A Doctor's Predicament

Lucius, a physician, asked a confessor what was to be done by him in these circumstances. Caius, a workman employed by Titius, had charge of a certain machine full of danger. One day Caius carelessly applied his mouth to a valve in the machine which he ought to have touched only with the instrument given for this purpose. A violent explosion followed and inflicted a grave wound upon Caius, so that he soon died. Before death he disclosed the cause of the explosion to Lucius alone, lest the insurance company hear of it and deny to his wife, destitute of other means of support, the sum of one thousand pounds for which his life had been insured. This in fact happened; for, because it suspected that some negligence of Caius had intervened, it refused to pay the money, and, when the wife of Caius brought an action against the company in a civil court, the company summoned Lucius as a witness. Hence it is asked:

1. What is a contract of insurance?

2. Can an entrusted secret be revealed, and when can or must it be revealed?

3. When questioned in courts, is a sole witness bound to disclose what he alone knows?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is the contract of insurance?

In a contract of life insurance, with which we are here concerned, the insurer undertakes to pay a given sum to another upon the happening of a particular event contingent upon the duration of human life in consideration of the immediate payment of a smaller sum or certain equivalent periodical payments.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 554.

2. May a professional secret be revealed, or ought it to be revealed, and when?

Professional secrets may and ought to be revealed when this is necessary to avert serious harm to the public weal, and also when the person whose secret is in question is abusing it to cause serious harm to an innocent person.²

2 The same work, p. 472.

3. Is an only witness who is examined in court bound to give evidence on what he alone knows?

In canon law the axiom held—Testis unus testis nullus. However, in English law, as in most modern systems, a solitary witness is admitted as sufficient evidence of a fact, and so an only witness, if interrogated, will be obliged to give evidence, unless there is some reason to the contrary.³

3 The same work, p. 595.

4. The case. If Lucius knew how the accident happened from other sources than from Caius himself, as, e.g., from his examination of Caius’ wounds, or from other informants, he will be bound to state it when required in court to do so. If the only source of his knowledge was the communication made under secrecy by Caius himself, he should say that he does not know how the accident happened, if he is asked about it. It would then be a professional secret, which he is not bound to reveal in the circumstances of the case before us. Caius was not guilty of fraud; he was only thoughtless, and his wife may take the insurance money if she can get it.