DOCTORS DIFFER

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 58, 31 May 1927, Page 9

DOCTORS DIFFER

A MATERNITY CASE ALLEGATION OF NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM \ battle of doctors has been staged at the Magistrate's Court by the opposing counsels, Mr. J. F. W. Dickson and Mr. T. N. Holmden, as a result of an allegation of negligence against a maternity nurse in the treatment of a patient whose child died 26 hours after birth. THE claim for £9 11s brought by Nurse Blanche Donald, of Herbert Road, Auckland, against T. Clark, a mill-hand of Mamaku, and the coun-ter-claim for £25 general damages and £3B 12s Sd special damages, brought by Air. Clark, was partly heard by Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., last week. Dr. T. H. Pettit, who was the first petitioner called by Mr. Holmden last Wednesday, told the court that in his opinion when the patient arrived at the home it was the duty of the nurse to discover her condition. When he had seen the baby, it appeared to be in normal health, but on the following morning it died of malignant jaundice. He reported the matter to the Health Department, as he thought that the circumstances of the birth may have contributed to the death of the child. NEGLIGENCE DENIED The defence brought by Mr. Dickson was to the effect that Nurse Donald was in bed when Mrs. Clark arrived at the maternity home at 7.30 p.m. She was preparing the room, and it was while she was doing this at about 7.50 p.m. that the child was born on the floor. All that was possible was then done for both the patient and the baby, but the birth was a big surprise since the mother had not indicated the urgency of her case. Nurse Donald, in her evidence, admitted that she did not ask Mrs. Clark her condition, although, she said, this should have been done. Dr. P. A. Lindsay thought that nothing else could have been done for the patient under the circumstances. He did not think the onus was on the nurse to inquire the patient’s condition, but that the patient should warn the nurse. Dr. Moir said that he had known Nurse Donald for 30 years, and that she was a capable nurse. He did not think there had been any negligence on her part. VARIED MEDICAL OPINIONS

When the case reopened this morning, Mr. Holmden called Dr. Hilda Northcroft, who has practised as a maternity specialist since 1908. Dr. Northcroft said that there should have been somebody with the patient. This was necessary for her comfort and moral support, as well as in case of any complications arising. The matron of a maternity home should expect patients to come in unexpectedly. “It’s up to the nurse to find out,” the doctor said, referring to the question of ascertaining the patient’s condition. In reply to Mr. Dickson’s cross-ex-amination, Dr. Northcroft said that the nurse should have put the patient to bed instead of getting the room ready. The evidence of Dr. R. T. Inglis supported Nurse Donald’s claim that there had been no negligence. It was not possible, as a general rule, for a medical practitioner to advise a patient with any degree of certainty when a child would be born. “*‘ll the woman did not complain I would certainly say that she was not very bad,” said Dr. Inglis. “It is absolutely absurd; I never heard a statement made like it before.” continued the witness, referring to Dr. Pettit’s statement that- the baby’s malignant jaundice might have been the result of the mode of birth. “It’s no use arguing with me, doctor,” said the magistrate when the witness reiterated this point. Cross-examined by Mr. Holmden, he supported Dr. Lindsay’s view that the nurse must depend on the patient’s own statement. “Would you expect a nurse in charge of a home such as this to make an inquiry regarding the patient’s condition?” asked Air. McKean. “Not unless she thought it was necessary,” was Dr. Inglis’s reply. Dr. W. H. Parkes was the next witness called by Mr. Dickson. He disagreed with both Dr. Pettit and Dr. Northcroft. “I have often been deceived as to when a child will be born,” he said.. “Children are often born on the floor, and I have never known instances where either the mother or child have suffered. I have known the same thing to happen in the most highly-equip-ped maternity homes. There was no necessity for the nurse to question the patient as to her condition.” Dr. Cyril Tewsley supported the previous medical evidence for the defence. To a question from Mr. Holmden during the cross-examination, he said that the nurse’s first duty was to form some kind of an estimate as to when the confinement is likely to take place. “You agree with Dr. Aloir?” asked Air. Holmden. “Yes,” said Dr. Tewsley. The Health Department regulations forbid any examination of the patient by the nurse, Dr. Tewsley explained to the magistrate. All she could do was to rely on her own observations and what the patient told her. Dr. W. E. Williams, another authority on maternity cases, indicated that he was in agreement with Dr. Inglis and the other doctors called by Mr. DickHe considered that the nurse was right in going on with her preparation of the room, under the circumstances. “In most cases they think they are very much worse than they really are,” said the witness. (Proceeding.)