Dr. Bond...being Dr. Bond

[Debra A]

Fees paid to Dr Bond as a medical witness

A little snippet on the fees paid to Dr Bond, from the British Medical Journal July 18 1903. The amount Dr Phillip's received for his services is also mentioned.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Debs.I noted certain similarities here to the way teachers were employed up until fairly recently. A fully qualified teacher with a full time teaching contract -which I had from day one of my first teaching appointment, [taking charge of a class of thirty pupils]- was paid significantly less than a peripatetic teacher of say music -often considered differently because it was considered to be a "specialism" and in much demand .Ditto a qualified supply teacher.Both were paid by the day and it added up to a lot more per week than a classroom teacher!.When this was questioned we were told that since we had six weeks holiday in Summer as well as other holidays, peripatetic teachers,and supply teachers did not get such holidays so were paid "in lieu" and therefore had a significantly higher rate of pay , by the day, because it included, pro rata, holiday pay. Additionally,pension contributions were deducted at source,tax arrangements differed and there were several other differences.But in most cases,the contract of employment, being permanent in the cases of full time contracts, ensured a superior job security.
Nevertheless with reference to Dr Bond, his services were clearly considered to be those of a " specialist" or "expert", which, as you have told us before, he was.
However in the case of Catherine [Rose] Mylett, his "expert opinion" seems to have been questionable at best and wrong according to four other doctors, including that of the Police -Surgeon- in -Chief, Dr MacKennar .
All the Best Debs,
Norma

[Dave O]

Don't forget inquest fees, Debs!

Thanks for that interesting excerpt, Debra. I'm guessing that a good proportion of these Old Bailey cases originated with inquests, and the doctors' participation in criminal cases were carried over. I would think that would be true of general practitioners and divisional surgeons, but perhaps Bond might be an exception; we know the CID and Treasury brought him into some inquests, but I suppose there were times he didn't enter the picture until after an inquest was held. So with something like Rose Mylett, Bond should have had a guinea from Wynne Baxter, Brownfield two guineas.

But anyway, when we're talking money, I think we ought to also consider inquest fees, which were per case: a guinea for a postmortem that the coroner has ordered, and another guinea for testifying (unless you're a doctor at an asylum or some medical institution where the deceased was a patient or the doctor is suspected of killing his patient).

These are 1836 rates--it's the same amount in 1836 as it was in 1888, so they're all, pathologist, g.p., divisional surgeon, horribly underpaid, but I guess it must be an eternal struggle getting local government to fund death investigation, with death investigation always coming up short (I think it's 1837 that the fees for medical witnesses were taken from the county rates). It's true that you can compare them to the average working person, or even the coroner (whose salary, if my memory serves, broke down to about twenty eight or thirty shillings per inquest), but consider the kind of work they were doing, and the environment they often did it in, I think they were indeed grossly underpaid. Though I don't know much about the Old Bailey, I suspect it was a palace compared to some places a medical witness might find himself.

And with the inquests, I think I'm right to say that generally, the medical witness was not kept waiting around; usually he was in and out. And paid either before the inquest, or certainly by its conclusion (this was required by law). Perhaps this is why it's not mentioned in the article, as the writer seems to have a particular gripe about having to hang about the Old Bailey.

I wonder how regular Bond's five guineas or Phillips' guinea were? I mean what they got outside the inquest, whether they were paid as promptly as the coroner paid them.

Cheers,
Dave

[Hunter]

Thanks for posting this, Hiunter.
The way I read it was that Dr Bond and Dr Larkin agreed that the deceased had borne a child/children. Their opinion was contradicted by Dr Meadows(?) ...an expert in midwifery anyway.

Hi Debs, and thanks for posting that article. These doctors are quite interesting, aren't they?

It is correct that Bond and Larkins agreed that the woman had born a child, however, they disagreed as to what the condition of the uterus would be if that was the case. Larkins thought that a woman who had born children would have a uterus with thinner walls while Bond believed the opposite.

[Debra A]

Thanks Debs.I noted certain similarities here to the way teachers were employed up until fairly recently. A fully qualified teacher with a full time teaching contract -which I had from day one of my first teaching appointment, [taking charge of a class of thirty pupils]- was paid significantly less than a peripatetic teacher of say music -often considered differently because it was considered to be a "specialism" and in much demand .Ditto a qualified supply teacher.Both were paid by the day and it added up to a lot more per week than a classroom teacher!.When this was questioned we were told that since we had six weeks holiday in Summer as well as other holidays, peripatetic teachers,and supply teachers did not get such holidays so were paid "in lieu" and therefore had a significantly higher rate of pay , by the day, because it included, pro rata, holiday pay. Additionally,pension contributions were deducted at source,tax arrangements differed and there were several other differences.But in most cases,the contract of employment, being permanent in the cases of full time contracts, ensured a superior job security.
Nevertheless with reference to Dr Bond, his services were clearly considered to be those of a " specialist" or "expert", which, as you have told us before, he was.
However in the case of Catherine [Rose] Mylett, his "expert opinion" seems to have been questionable at best and wrong according to four other doctors, including that of the Police -Surgeon- in -Chief, Dr MacKennar .
All the Best Debs,
Norma

Hi Norma,
I might be misunderstanding your post, if so my apologies, but I cannot see where you are going with the teachers payscale comparison. As I read the piece (and I know we have talked briefly about this previously) the writer of the article giving the examples does mention that besides being a police surgeon, he, in common with Dr Phillips also had a private practice (this is what I meant in previous posts about Phillip's being the equivalent of a modern day GP as well as police surgeon?) and the police surgeon work was supplementary. I think it was exactly the same in Bond's case, he being assistant surgeon at the Westminster hospital and lecturer in forensic medicine there primarily, and police surgeon for A Division as extra work.

It is still true that Bond went against the opinion of four other doctors in the Catherine Mylett case, yes, Norma, but according to the Lancet (Rob posted the article on the Mylett thread recently) his conclusions weren't that questionable to those involved in commenting on the case in that publication at least.

Best wishes
Debs

[Debra A]

Hi Debs, and thanks for posting that article. These doctors are quite interesting, aren't they?

It is correct that Bond and Larkins agreed that the woman had born a child, however, they disagreed as to what the condition of the uterus would be if that was the case. Larkins thought that a woman who had born children would have a uterus with thinner walls while Bond believed the opposite.

Hi Hunter,
I should have read your original post more thoroughly, sorry
What's interesting is that both Dr Larkins and Dr Bond felt confident enough in their own opinions to go against a doctor who was an 'expert' in midwifery, with a little 'one-upmanship going on between themselves too.
The BMJ came to Dr Bond and Dr Larkin's defence in this case too, backing up their measurments of the uterus with published research from the doctor who opposed their views in the Old Bailey trial!

Best wishes
Debs

[Debra A]

Thanks for that interesting excerpt, Debra. I'm guessing that a good proportion of these Old Bailey cases originated with inquests, and the doctors' participation in criminal cases were carried over. I would think that would be true of general practitioners and divisional surgeons, but perhaps Bond might be an exception; we know the CID and Treasury brought him into some inquests, but I suppose there were times he didn't enter the picture until after an inquest was held. So with something like Rose Mylett, Bond should have had a guinea from Wynne Baxter, Brownfield two guineas.

But anyway, when we're talking money, I think we ought to also consider inquest fees, which were per case: a guinea for a postmortem that the coroner has ordered, and another guinea for testifying (unless you're a doctor at an asylum or some medical institution where the deceased was a patient or the doctor is suspected of killing his patient).

These are 1836 rates--it's the same amount in 1836 as it was in 1888, so they're all, pathologist, g.p., divisional surgeon, horribly underpaid, but I guess it must be an eternal struggle getting local government to fund death investigation, with death investigation always coming up short (I think it's 1837 that the fees for medical witnesses were taken from the county rates). It's true that you can compare them to the average working person, or even the coroner (whose salary, if my memory serves, broke down to about twenty eight or thirty shillings per inquest), but consider the kind of work they were doing, and the environment they often did it in, I think they were indeed grossly underpaid. Though I don't know much about the Old Bailey, I suspect it was a palace compared to some places a medical witness might find himself.

And with the inquests, I think I'm right to say that generally, the medical witness was not kept waiting around; usually he was in and out. And paid either before the inquest, or certainly by its conclusion (this was required by law). Perhaps this is why it's not mentioned in the article, as the writer seems to have a particular gripe about having to hang about the Old Bailey.

I wonder how regular Bond's five guineas or Phillips' guinea were? I mean what they got outside the inquest, whether they were paid as promptly as the coroner paid them.

Cheers,
Dave

Hi Dave,
Thanks for the additional information regarding fees etc.
Yes, this particular writer did seem to have a beef with having to appear at the Old Bailey! I think on the whole (it is a much longer piece) some of the writer's arguments are based on the grievances of the 'United Kingdom Police Surgeons' association', formed in 1894 after the success of the Metropolitan version formed in 1887 and mentioned in Rob and Neil's article on Dr. Brown, in Ripperologist 112.
Dr Bond was some time president of the UK association which began trying to bring about a change in the pay structure (it seems to concentrate more on the poor amount of expenses paid for consecutive court appearances in a distict away from their own divisions though, apparently this rate of remuneration hadn't been revised since 1858)
The grievances don't appear to have been fully investigated (though heard officially) until the early 1900's. There is a Parliamentary Paper that covers some of this topic that I mentioned before but still cannot locate again. In that paper I am sure that Dr Phillip's actual payments for police work connected to the Whitechapel murders is discussed, and I think that the effect it had on Dr Phillip's practice and workload was also touched upon with regard to the poor payments he received....I'm sure I didn't dream that bit, although I did dream about the 5 shillings versus the one shilling didn't I?

Best wishes
Debs

[Natalie Severn]

"pro rata " payments

Hi Debs, Its known as being paid "pro rata" ! At least some of Dr Bond"s inflated pay would have been because he would have been being paid "pro rata" .
The same happens in teaching .A classroom teacher employed on a regular monthly salary probably receives a lower amount in total each month than the supply teacher who teaches only when specifically called out to cover for a class. A qualified supply teacher may get £200 per day while the qualified class teacher may get only £140 per day for doing the same day"s work .The reason is because the supply teacher is employed "pro rata" on an irregular basis.
Best
Norma

[Rob Clack]

This is from 'Lloyds Weekly News' Sunday 9 June 1901











Rob

[Debra A]

Thanks very much for posting this, Rob,
Interesting to read that the balance of Dr. Bond's mind was upset by actual intolerable physical pain that he was unable to bear without morphia, rather than something stemming from depression or anything connected to his work or past.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Debs,

Yes, not a nice way to go, and the Coroner paid a nice tribute to him.

Rob

[Suzi]

Jump out of the window AND blow his brains out!!!! Going with a bang!!! shame it was OR
Blessim without Bond - where would we be....
Thanks for that Rob x

[corey123]

Thanks for that Rob.

Sad story, but I ditto Debra's comment.

[Suzi]

Exactly- good point Debs x

[corey123]

In the end we owe alot to Dr.Bond, especially with Mary Kelly's case.