The development of American gastroenterology

epithets, attorneys remain shadows in the background throughout the text. He ignores, however, the legal profession's view of the malpractice phenomena as found in contemporary legal journals. Several problems hinder De Ville's analysis. He never explains how his causal factors interacted and contributed to the rise of malpractice suits, nor does he weigh their relative importance. While he shows what made suits likely, he never states what initiated the rash of litigation. Yet his work demonstrates the advantages of integrating surveys of case precedents, medical technological development and social change into an ambitious search for the origins of medical malpractice. Further fine-tuned research, perhaps the tedious search of original cases which he shuns, will help scholars to understand better how the complex interaction of professional, technological, legal, religious and societal interests affected the relationship between the medical profession and public in the legal arena.