ANAESTHETICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 1 October 1924, Page 1

ANAESTHETICS.

DENTISTS v. DDCTOKS. n v Tn.i’.OßAm -— i'll i:ss assn., i oevitie.nT, INVEMCAIiOII.L. Sept. L Al tile 11 it | 1111 ,V lilt" ll"' dentil "I Llviii.'llvn Neil, the evident-.' showed that lie had been op, rate I on for append iri l is. from iibieli lie nils otmvalesi'eiit, when chest ti.iulle ilovel.pI'd. necessitating an operation, under u 111 •■ 11 lie expir'd. The operation was einnlili tell by Dr l.ibsmi. who ivns assisii I I.v a denial surgeon Mr Arthur Math, who administered the anaesthetic. which ."insisted of nitrons oxide

mil oxygen. I)r K'.vnrt, in evidence said he lav nired chloroform ill such cases. am

lie presence oi a second medical man Dr Owen .lolmstini said that he use. similar anai'slhelic in similar cases II successfully.

.Mr Bath stated lit* II Iretpienlly administ ,*i 0.l sudi :t!i:it*stlit*l i; s. and never previously 1 1 :i•.I a fatal i"bc. Tlia C uoiiar returned a verdii t that death occurred imtit'r an anaesthetic, administered in tin* coarse of an operation. which was absolutely essential and was skilfully conducted. lie (Mr.J. <■'. h. Hewitt) added that it would he safe to say that a dentist would he more shilled in administering such an anaesthetic than a doctor, ns the former was using it every day.