From the LIFE Archive – Hidden Cameras and Quackery
Google is an amazing tool. Not only will scouring the complete LIFE Magazine archives on Google Books yield some classic photo essays, but Google Scholar now searches court opinions. Both these Google tools helped illuminate the funky back story on a LIFE article from 1963.
Accompanying an undercover agent from Public Health Department, a LIFE reporter used a hidden camera to capture the practice of a quack doctor (apparently ‘quack’ was the default term back then). The resulting photo ran in the November 1, 1963 issue of LIFE.
That much is apparent from the LIFE article, but I appreciated the account gleaned from Google Scholar. The following excerpt is from the case Dietemann v. Time, Inc. in which a panel of judges upheld a previous ruling in favor of Mr. Dietemann, the quack doctor.
“The plaintiff had some equipment which could at best be described as gadgets, not equipment which had anything to do with the practice of medicine. Plaintiff, while examining Mrs. Metcalf, was photographed by Ray with a hidden camera without the consent of plaintiff. One of the pictures taken by him appeared in Life Magazine showing plaintiff with his hand on the upper portion of Mrs. Metcalf’s breast while he was looking at some gadgets and holding what appeared to be a wand in his right hand. Mrs. Metcalf had told plaintiff that she had a lump in her breast. Plaintiff concluded that she had eaten some rancid butter 11 years, 9 months, and 7 days prior to that time. Other persons were seated in the room during this time.”
Dietemann won $1,000 for the invasion of his privacy, which isn’t much when you consider he originally asked for $100,000 general damages and $200,000 exemplary damages. On Google Scholar you can read the whole effed up ruling.
