THE CANCER CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 19 August 1924, Page 4

THE CANCER CASE.

im.aixtike deceives damages. AITKI.AXD. August 10. ’) tie case in wbiib ..Marjorie May Anne 1.-.iwi eni e, wile of Edwin Erancis Lawrence, drain layer, ol Hamilton, sought to recover £l!)*'0 general and £.Vj .special damages from llenr.v Dundas MaeKenzie, mtdieal practitioner, of Auckland, on the ground of failure t) exon iso a reas-uiahle degree of professional knowledge and skill and lor negligence in his treatment of lic.r, was <i> tit I tided to-day.

Alter counsel's addresses Air .1 list ice .Stringer summed up at length. Hisaid that a medical man was not relink ed to possess the highest degree of skill or exeniso the utmost degree el care, but was exj.ccied to oxen’,? reas(,iia'd(‘ care and skill, and if lie la.iled In do so lie was guilty of neglecting bis responsibility. It was nut xuUirieiit that there should he shown mi error of judgment or that something better might have been done. In this | articubu- . a-e dcleinbint was nut responsible at law for that. The jury need not embarrass themselves ill regard to the Abrams treatment, except in one respect. Here was a patienl who | Im-ed herself under deIciidant's i tire and treatment under <>l- - methods to wliicit. accoriling to the (•-. idcuie. the Ah-rams treatment was merely a a accessary or auxiliary to oidimtry u etlimls. It was in L a .a-.- in >. iiidi | laioliif tnirivnI'ezed lici'scll to a ] annular method 1 tactisc I by dgl'emlain. cl. i M-t Itint-elf out m l.e a specialist in iaili-1.- and cbioiiic discuses. Hi August. I!)•.>_>. .Mis l.awience told Dr .MaeKenzie that two doi tors of undoubted ipn-iiili: at ions bad advised In-f In undergo an operation to prevent tin- possibility of inurcr. That was admit:' I 1 1 v the defendant. himself. It seemed to iii' Honour that m the eirciiiiistam es this would urge need for more (bail ordinary ea : e and vigilance ill llie doctor who took over the in The utmost unanimous medical testimony was [lnit if swelling of the l.ieast in silc-li cast- did not. recede or at .'east remain .stationary, sitrgi<al interference v.as indicated. It was ilel'ci,daiii’s duly to carefully w.-it'h this i.tse for devt-loj meiit. Was be .iiistilicd in the circi-tiistaiu cs to let li-cr go away in .March, lik’d, when according to his ow n account the be-1 that could be said of tin* case was that it was stationary, to let. her go away without warning that if she did not improve site should nil her come back to bim o consult some other doctor? Was 't reasonable that his interest in the Patient should cease when guineas ‘■eased to ilow I’riini her packet, wbicb bail been dejlcted.’ Ha l lie no duly to warn lu-r as to possible complieal ions 1I lie jury returned with a unanimous verdict that Dr. .Mai Kenzio bad been guilty o! negligence and awarded plaintiff the Dili amount, claimed. His Honor enlcied judgment for £-’ ■ 0() with ui.sts on the highest scale.