TWO DEATHS UNDER ANAESTHETIC

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 234, 30 June 1944, Page 6

TWO DEATHS UNDER ANAESTHETIC

Discussed By Hospital Board

STATEMENT MADE BY SUPERINTENDENT

Reference to public comment on the recent deaths of two patients while under anaesthetic iu the Wellington Public Hospital was made by Mr. V. M. Simpson at a meeting of the hospital board last night. Did the superintend-ent-iu-chief consider that any disciplinary action was necessary in regard to any members of the staff, and, if so, had it been taken? he asked. The chairman, Mr. 11. F. Toogood, said it had always been considered desirable for the board to deal with such matters in another way. The medical superintendent was not “on the spot,” and it was unbecoming to ask him the question. If any disciplinary action was necessary it would be taken. Mr. W. S. Cederholm said he believed an inquiry should be held. “We are elected by the public and should satisfy ourselve? that everything is all right,” he said. “Several people have told me that they would not come to the hospital. IVe want to restore public confidence.” Mr. A. P. O’Shea said that an inquiry had no doubt already been held. Miss A. Kune said the public was very concerned, and it might be a good thing if the medical superintendent assured the board publicly that steps had. been taken to see that a like incident did not occur again. Mrs. Knox Gilmer said that, as former chairman of the staff and house committee, she could assure members that, out of the thousands of operations performed in the hospital—l7,ooo a year —there were very very few deaths under anaesthetic. The hospital had the high-

anaestnenc. inc nospirai nau me uiguest possible standard. The staff generally obeyed the rules implicitly. “The public have nothing to fear from any of the medical staff in coming to this hospital,” she said. Mr. Simpson said be wanted to make it quite plain that he had the utmost confidence in the medical superintendent, and he agreed that the hospital's record was one to be proud of. The superintendent-in-chief, Dr. J. Cairney, said he would first draw attention to the fact that it had been clearly stated in evidence at the inquest that the change in anaesthetists, which constituted a breach of the rules, was not the cause of death in either of the cases. The rule, which he had made himself, had been in existence for severa.l years and had generally been very well observed. There had always been a let-out, however, because the rule contained the words “except in circumstances of extreme urgency.” He felt that that proviso must always stand, otherwise serious danger would be created. In certain hospitals, including one of those in the four main centres —a trailing hospital—changes were frequent and were looked on as normal procedure. After the two occurrences to which reference had been made, he had set out his opinions in a confidential memorandum to all visiting anaesthetists, and had also addressed all house surgeons at a Special conference. At that time there were several reasons for deferring consideration of any possible disciplinary measures. For one thing, the matter was in the hands of the coroner, and it was undesirable to .appear to prejudge the facts before him. At the_ inquest, it had been clearly stated in evidence that the change of anaesthetists had nothing to do with the cause of death in either case. He did not, therefore, propose to take any further action, unless a committee of the board decided otherwise. . Mr. Simpson expressed satisfaction with the statement which had been made. ■ 11 ■■■■■ 1 *