vol2 - Page 34

 • surgical procedure clai_d to have been unnecessary° The court quoted from an
 Arizona court declsion holdllng that
 .-, -:-:+..
 _.a _ethod of treatment, as espouse_ and used by o o _ a
 -._ ' --.-,;.: ;:_re_c, ab-l_ minority of physicians i_ the United States,
 cannot be said to be aB inappropriate method of treat-
 merit or to be malpractice as a mal_ter of law ever though
 it has not beer accepted as a proper method of treatment
 by the. _edlc_l profess io_ generally®
 [bi_ air294. Not-i_gthat the Parietal Oistri_ct court i_ the Arizona case found
 a "respectable minority _ composed of sixty-five physicians throughout the Uniter
 States, the Texas court adopted a_ "the better rule" to apply i_ its cases that
 a physicla_ is net guilty of malpractice _here the
 method of treatment used is supported by a respect-
 able minority of physicians®
 Ibid.
 l_ Chumbler v. I_cClure, 505 F_2d 489 (6th Cir. Ig74) the Federal courts
 _ere dealing _ith a medical malpractice case under their diversity jurisdictio_
 applying Tennessee laws The Court of Appeals said:
 . _ The _st favorable l_terpretation that may be
 placed on the testimony adduced at trial belo_ is
 that there i_ a division of opinlo_ in the medical
 professlo_ regarding the use of Premarin in the Treat_
 merit of cerebral vascul_r l_sufficiency, and that Dr_
 McCIure _as alone among neurosurgeo_s i_ Nashville in
 using such therapy. The test for malpractice and for
 co_nlty standards is not to be determined solely by
 a plebiscites Where two or more schools of thought
 exist among competent members of the medical profess
 sio_ concerning proper medlcal treatment for _ given
 ailn_nt, each of which is _ported b___ responsible
 C_