HOSPITAL BOARD SUED FOR £4000

Grey River Argus, 24 March 1948, Page 4

HOSPITAL BOARD SUED FOR £4000

Wrong Use of Anaesthetics Alleged Auckland Jury Fails to Agree

P.A. AUCKLAND, March 23 A special jury tailed to agree on a claim for damages by the Public Trustee (represented by Mr A. K. North K.C., and Mr C. P. Richmond), against the Auckland Hospital tsoard (Mr V. R. Meredith and Mr G. D. Speight), heard before Mr Justice Fair, in the Supreme Court to-aay. The claim was for £4OOO. It was brought by the' piaintnx on benali ut Mrs Janet Donaldson: Sandilands, widow of George Sandilands, who died in the Auckland Hospital on May 8, 1946, and of her child.

■ The plaintiff claimed that chloroform and adrenalin were used in combination, during an operation on the deceased, contrary to medical practice

After a retirement of four hours, the jury returned and announced mat tney could not agree. Askea by Mis Honour it there was any cnance oi them returning a verdict by a three-quarter majority, tlie Foreman said he 'did not think so. He said that they considered the case to be a very serious one, anu tney nau done their best to get their views to coincide. His Honour said that he was sure that the jury had devoted the greatest attention to a difficult quesuwi. He did not think that further consideration would assist them, and he would therefore discharge them from giving a_verdict. In summing up, His Honour discussed the question whether the jury was required to determine if adrena. lin should be used in operations under anaesthesia or whether the use of cholorofo'rm was permissible. <T,ne. issue appeared to be one for a medical committee who could devote tue necessary time to it and could be assisted by a full and detailed examination of literature, experience, ana research. General consideration of the case, he said, showed that the mortality rate under anaesthesia was lower in New Zealand than in most AngloSaxon countries. The figures suggested that it was sate for people to undergo operations. The medical profession was taking the utmost care to discover the safest anaesthetic, and to see that those which were not as safe as others were excluded. His Honour said that the care required of a doctor was, generally speaking, that, required of men undertaking to do work. He had to have the necessary knowledge and qualifications for the work, and to, use care and skill in carrying it. out.

Allegations that the use of chloroform and adrenalin in anaesthesia was a negligent act by tile aneasthetist and surgeon concerned were dealt with by His Honour. He pointed out that ,in many aspects of medicine, there were two schools of thought, and, as it was an exact science, it was not possible to say which view was right. Medical literature contained a warning against the use of adrenalin, at least sub-cutaneously, while a patient was under light anaesthesia from chloroform and ether. He said from that it might be thought that a doctor'would be warned of the danger of injecting- adrenalin after anaesthesia. Evidence for the defence was that injections of adrenalin under chloroform had been a regular routine practice for years, and that there had oeen no ill effects. Evidence of f/athologists was recalled by His Honour. They had said, that sufficient adrenalin could not have got. into the heart in this case to cause the results suggested. They claimed that, there were . mortality risks with every anaesthetic, and that it was not possible to prove that it caused death in this case.