John (1) Scott

John (1) Scott MD
File:Scott, John (1).jpg
Residence	22 Manchester Square; Singapore
Occupation	medical
Society Membership membership ESL Ordinary Fellow left 1868 last listed elected_ESL 1866.06.12

Notes

House Notes

number after first name to distinguish between fellows of same name

Notes From Elsewhere

Soon, the private practitioners began to play prominent parts in the social and non-medical life of Singapore. They undertook public service. Dr Little was appointed Coroner in October 1848, Dr Charles Julius Curties in January 1857, and Dr John Scott in June 1860, when Dr Curties died on June 5, 1860.
Dr John Scott accused Dr Robert Little of defaming him by stating that he was not entitled to call himself “doctor”. Dr Scott paid for the exchange of correspondence between them to be published in the advertising columns of the Daily Times of March 16, 1861. Parts are quoted in full as they make very interesting and very informative
reading (which include details regarding professional qualifications and medical etiquette in the 19th century(59)).
“Singapore, 4.3.1861.
My dear Dr Little,
It has been brought to my notice that in a conversation which you have recently had with a gentleman, and into which my name was introduced, you made certain remarks implying that I was not a Doctor of Medicine and had no right to attach M.D. to my name. Although my informant is positive in stating that you left the above impression on his mind, I will still venture to hope that he may have been mistaken as I find it difficult to conceive what could induce you to make a statement so calculated to inflict the deepest injury on my character as a professional man and a gentleman. You will therefore oblige me by giving me in writing a distinct denial of having made use of any expression leading anyone to suppose I was not as a Doctor of Medicine fully entitled to write
M.D. after my name.
Believe me, yours truly, John Scott.”

“Singapore Dispensary, 4.3.1861.
My dear Scott,
It being the custom in this place to style every medical man “doctor”, I believe you adopted this addition to your name from it being forced upon you, especially as I had heard that on your cards you wrote “Doctor” and did not always sign M.D. nor define of what College you were a graduate, the rules amongst graduates being to attach to the M.D. the College they belonged to. As you state you are a Doctor of Medicine, I am bound to believe you and if you will inform me of what College, I will be delighted to mention it to anyone who like myself did not know the
fact before. I need not say you would not have been singular even if you had adopted the addition of “doctor” without being a M.D. as it is daily done by “another” in his cards and notes. ......... I think it is a subject of regret that there is not a registration of medical men here, and if you would establish one it would, I am sure, be agreeable to all our feelings and add much to the respectability of the profession.
Yours truly, R. Little, M.D. Edin.”

“Singapore, 5.3.1861.
Sir,
Your reply to my note of yesterday’s date is so disingenuous and insulting that it is with very deep regret I feel myself compelled to alter the tone of a correspondence which I was anxious to conduct in the friendliest spirit. Pray what right had you to assume that any circumstances or the usages of any place could induce me to do a thing of which I ought to be ashamed. You say you are bound to believe that I am a Doctor of Medicine because I state that I am one, whilst you acknowledge to having known that I took the title on my cards and wrote M.D. after my name, but did not consider the use of them justifiable. I assert and I do most emphatically that you are bound to believe me to be what I profess myself till by enquiries you had ascertained you could prove the contrary. To
take a title to which one has no legitimate claim is to stamp oneself an imposter, and to do that is mean, despicable and dishonest and this charge you have endeavoured to fix on me. Your letter is a plain admission that you have attempted to do me this foul wrong while it is unaccompanied by a single expression of regret for the infliction of an injury which nothing can justify or extenuate. I beg to tell you that had you asked me, I would have had much pleasure in satisfying you that I was fully entitled to write M.D. after my name, and I now call on you to retract your statement and give me an ample apology for having made them.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
John Scott, M.D.”

“Singapore, 7.3.1861.
Dr Scott having waited upon us (the undersigned) and laid before us certain correspondence wherein his professional qualifications had been called into question, we have at his special request examined the diplomas and certificates in his possession and find they are as follows, viz.
Degree of Doctor of Medicine from the University
of St Andrew’s, Scotland.
Diploma of Membership from the Royal College of
Surgeons of Ireland.
Diploma of Fellowship from the same.
Certificate (or Diploma) of qualification in
Midwifery from the same.
Certificate (or Diploma) of qualifications in
Chemistry, Botany, Materia Medica and Pharmacy,
the compounding and administering of medicines,
and in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
from the same.
The course pursued by Dr Scott in thus vindicating his position is perhaps the most satisfactory one he
could have adopted, but we are bound to disclaim any right or authority on our part to see his qualifications
which can only be called for in a Court of Law, and we consider the implications complained by him to have been as most unwarranted and as coming more particularly from a medical man, most unprofessional.
W. FARQUHAR, M.D.
Assistant Surgeon in medical charge, Artillery.
J. I. FRASER, M.D.,
Assistant Surgeon, Madras Army.
JAMES COWPAR,
Residency Assistant Surgeon.

I have much pleasure in stating that at Dr Scott’s request I have examined the diplomas and certificates
mentioned above. It is perhaps the best course Dr Scott could have taken as his professional titles have been
called in question.
Henry A Allen, M.D.”

Dr Little apologised, but rather reluctantly and not whole-heartedly:
“Singapore, 11.3.1861.
Sir,
............ I confess my regret, my intention being to state that I did not know you signed M.D., and consequently I was in ignorance of your being one, an ignorance shared in by three other resident medical men who told me they have never seen you sign M.D. and were in ignorance of the honour I believe you have a just claim to.
I remain, yours truly.
R. Little, M.D. Edin.” [FROM: Private practitioners and private hospitals in early Singapore (1819-1872) Y K Lee
IN Singapore Med J 2005; 46(9) : 489