540

consulting medical opinion, before the programme the B.B.C.consulted the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College ofPhysicians, and the College of General Practitioners. Afterthe programme, those three colleges said that they appreciatedthe programme.

Sir HUGH LINSTEAD: Does the Minister agree that thereaction from the public, as received by the B.B.C., has beenalmost entirely favourable to this programme ?-Mr. MARPLES:As far as I understand, there had been, up to Feb. 20, very littlereaction in the form of letters. There were 25 letters approvingand encouraging the programme, 6 suggesting additions to theservice, and, I think, 7 suggesting that the programme isunsuitable.The House returned to this subject on Feb. 27 when

Dr. EDITH SUMMERSKILL raised it on the adjournment. Shecontended that to have an interest in disease was not healthyunless one was a public-health worker. A lay person had onlya morbid interest in disease which these television films were

fostering. She accepted that intelligent men and women hadlooked at these films and said: " How very interesting. Yes,these should be very interesting to the viewing public."But a surgeon or physician interested in his own techniqueprobably did not think how the films might hurt those whowere not so intelligent or well-informed, and the fact was thatT.V. today was viewed by a vast number of emotionally unstablepeople who identified themselves closely with the proceedings.Mr. KENNETH THOMPSON, the Assistant Postmaster-

General, admitted that the programmes were controversial,but he had more confidence than Dr. Summerskill in the

capacity of his fellow citizens to judge for themselves and toarrange their conduct in the light of that judgment. It wastrue that for its own reasons the B.B.C. did not consult theBritish Medical Association, but the Minister was not calledon to express an opinion on the rights and wrongs of that. Inthese things the B.B.C. must have complete freedom. Suppos-ing the B.B.C. had consulted the B.M.A., and the B.M.A.had expressed the opinion which now appeared in the BritishMedical oMrM<2/, was the B.B.C. then to allow the B.M.A.to have the power of veto over its proposals ? This would surelyplace both bodies in an impossible position.

His personal opinion, in which the Minister concurred,was that the programmes would do good rather than harm.Some neurotics and hypochondriacs might react badly, butthat applied also to other films and presentations on the B.B.C.If one person was advised by these programmes to seek anearly opinion and if one life was saved or one illness shortened,the B.B.C. could claim that it had been instrumental in puttingunderstanding in place of fear, information in place of mystery,and guidance where there was only doubt.

N.H.S. Visits

Under the National Health Service the average number ofvisits per patient is about 3 by the patient to the doctor andabout 2 by the doctor to the patient.

1. Times, Feb. 26, 1958.

Medicine and the Law

Personality Change after OperationA FORMER teacher was charged with fraudulent con-

version, and it was claimed that after an operation twoyears previously his personality had changed completely-from companionable to morose, according to his wife.lA psychiatrist gave evidence that after the operationthere was a complication that resulted in damage to thebrain through lack of oxygen. This damage caused apersonality change, which might result in his losing hissense of responsibility and his memory for recent events.The defendant was put on probation for three years oncondition that he underwent a course of psychiatrictreatment.

Obituary

JOSEPH GODWIN GREENFIELDM.D., B.Sc., LL.D. Edin., F.R.C.P.

SINCE his retirement in 1949 from the post of patho-logist to the National Hospital, Queen Square, Dr. Green-field had worked from time to time in the United States;and it was at Bethesda, Maryland, that he died last

Saturday at the age of 73.His father was W. S. Greenfield, F.R.C.P., professor of

pathology and clinical medicine at Edinburgh, and he waseducated at Merchiston and Edinburgh University. Qualifying

in 1908, he was house-physi-cian at Queen Square for a yearor two before he went to theGeneral Infirmary at Leedsas assistant pathologist in 1912.In 1914 he returned to theNational Hospital as patholo-gist ; but he held a commissionin the R.A.M.C. until 1919. Inthat year he was writing withFarquhar Buzzard on encephal-itis lethargica, and in 1921 theycollaborated in their Pathologyof the Nervous System. Hewas making, and continued tomake, fine use of his excep-tional opportunities for work-ing both individually and withclinicians; and among his laterstudies were contributions

made with W. J. Adie, James Taylor, Purdon Martin, andE. A. Carmichael, and with American associates.

As a teacher Greenfield exerted much influence throughhis books but even more through his daily contacts, alikewith juniors and with coevals; for his qualities as a personmatched his abilities as investigator and pathologist.Some of these qualities and abilities are brought out bythe following tributes from two of his friends.

* * *

The sudden and unexpected death of Godwin Greenfield,in what seemed a singularly youthful and robust old age,marks far more for his friends and colleagues than the passingof a great figure in the world of neuropathology. Not soonshall we see again a man in whom were so happily blendedso many qualities : a lightly-worn but immense erudition in hissubject, a record of major contribution to it, a generosityunsurpassed in the giving of the fruits of his experience toother workers, a complete unselfishness, with a modesty andequanimity and an integrity that made it not possible for himto have an enemy, and that gained for him a widespreadpersonal affection and respect. A more rounded and completepersonality it would have been hard to find, and those whoenjoyed the privilege of his friendship, as colleagues or aspupils, will not forget him. Good nature he had in abundance,but no gifts of eloquence, and it was in personal conversationand teaching that he made his greatest impact upon his pupilsand upon all who sought his advice or help.My own valued friendship with Greenfield began in 1912

when we were both in residence in the National Hospital, QueenSquare. From this hospital he moved to Leeds to learn thediscipline of pathology, that he was to follow, from that greatteacher, Matthew Stewart, professor of pathology at Leeds.The first war ended, Greenfield returned as its first whole-time pathologist to Queen Square, and there with limitedresources, and with still narrower material reward, he beganthat unbroken course of original contributions to neuro-

pathology upon which he was still engaged up to the time ofhis death. These contributions appeared in Brain and other