Advertisement
Neurology®
The most widely read and highly cited peer-reviewed Neurology journal
Quick Search
Advanced Search
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Correspondence:
Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Correspondence are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goetz, C. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goetz, C. G.
Related Collections
Right arrow History of Neurology
Right arrow Malpractice
NEUROLOGY 2004;62:1827-1833
© 2004 American Academy of Neurology
Historical Neurology

Medical-legal issues in Charcot’s neurologic career

Christopher G. Goetz, MD

From the Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Christopher G. Goetz, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 West Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60612; e-mail: cgoetz{at}rush.edu

Objective: Trace the medical-legal involvement of the 19th century clinical neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot.

Background: The two major neurologic concerns of the 1800s that involved legal questions were topics of particular academic interest to Charcot: post-traumatic neurologic syndromes and the behavioral consequences of hysteria and hypnotism. Although Charcot’s medical views influenced several nonmedical fields, including art, poetry, and drama, his impact on medical-legal issues has not been examined.

Methods: Original documents from the Bibliothèque Charcot at the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, legal documents, and publications from Charcot’s era were examined.

Results: Although his involvement in medical-legal affairs was a modest element of Charcot’s multifaceted career, he was involved in four different types of medical-legal activities: as a cited authority in the medical-legal literature, as an author of articles within medical-legal contexts, as a subpoenaed expert consultant, and as an expert examiner.

Conclusions: Charcot’s involvement demonstrates the long tradition of an interface between neurology and legal medicine and provides a model for highly limited but authoritative involvement by academic neurologists in medical-legal affairs.

Received November 10, 2003. Accepted in final form January 20, 2004.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 NeurologyHome page
C. G. Goetz
J.-M. Charcot and simulated neurologic disease: Attitudes and diagnostic strategies
Neurology, July 3, 2007; 69(1): 103 - 109.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Advertisement