CASE AGAINST A MEDICAL MAN.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 5206, 13 December 1895, Page 2

CASE AGAINST A MEDICAL MAN.

BROOKS V, BEARD. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT WITH COSTS. The casein which Bangor Brooks, of Manriccville, sought to recover £2OO alleged damages from Dr S. F. Beard, under circumstances fully detailed by us yesterday was continued as follows, bofore Mr District Judge Kettle, at the Wairarapa District Court yesterday afternoon— The ovidouce of Dr A. G. Talbot, takeu in Wellington, was put in by the plaintiff. It agreed in some respects with the opinions already giyen by the other medical witnesses. In his opiuion it was not probable that a large portion of tllo membrane could bo retained without knowing it. The common practice now was not to use the douche. .In using a douche there was a danger of driving the antiseptic through the fallopian tubes into the abdomen. Septic poisoning was highly dangerous and precautions should bo taken when symptoms appeared. Dr. E. Rtiwson, whoso evidence .was also taken in Wellington, said shreds of membrane were sometimes left in the uterus. They might cause septicemia. Diarrhcea would not come on for some time after the poison had taken effect. Would not instruct an untrained nurse to use a douche. Warm water should have an antiseptic added to it, as warm water, though harmless, might act as a vehicle for septic germs. Should have thought it his duty to have seen the patient after having received such a message as that sent to Dr. Beard. It was impossible for a doctor to be certain he had removed all the membranes with the placenta. Would not allow a patient to sit up five days after a confinement. Mr Pownall asked leave to join the names of the grandfather and grandmother (William Rossiter and Jane Ridgway) to the parties in the statement of claim. This concluded the case for the plaintiff.

Mr Skerrett submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, as negligence had not been proved. There was no evidence to shoiv that Dr Beard knowingly left any membrane behind. All the medical testimony went to show that if a medical man took every precaution possible, there would probably bo shreds of membrane left behind, Mr Pownall contended that from what Dr Beard said to the nurse, he (Dr Beard) was aware that membranes were left behind. The medical evidence for the prosecution went to prove that Dr Beard did not pursue a proper course after receiving the message by-Mrs Lehmstedt,

Mr SkciTott applied fora non-suit. His Honor deciding to bear evidence for tlio defence. The Court then adjourned, and on resuming at 2 p.m., Dr. Spencer l l '. Beard, the defendant, gave evidence that when called to attend Mrs Brooks, the baby was born, but the after-birth had not come away. There was no Hooding. Examined the patient in the usual way, and found the placenta .in the uterus. Then expressed it into the vagina, from the passage. In this case, it ' came into the vagina, and remained there. Applied slight traction to 1 tlio cord, and then as it did not come introduced his hand , into tlio vagina and brought it a»vay. He afterwards passed two fingers into the passage and found the uterus ; contracted, There were no loose i dots or membranes in the vagina. Ho examined the placenta to see if it was entire. He found it was entire, It was tlio experience of all doctors that there is more blood clot after the placenta has lain for a time than when it comes away at once. In this case there was a very good contraction, It was his practice to instruct the nurse to syringe with antiseptics when clots were likely to be present, with Condy's ibid if ir , was handy, if not hot water would do ■ as well. He gave the usual iustruci tions for diet. Ordered castor oil on the third day. This was his usual 1 course, Ho loft the woman in a thoroughly satisfactory condition, the uterus being well contracted. Was perfectly satisfied that no mem- , brano was remaining in the uterus or the passage. Examined to see if the uterus had contracted and so , nipped a piece of membrane, and was ! perfectly satislied that nothing re-, mained. On ordinary conditions he • would not go to see a patient a second time if she lived overlive miles away. The rule in country t cases is not tq visit a second time, without some extraordinary occurrence took placu. Never said to Mrs Goodgame, that some membranes mjght come away; there was not the slightest necessity for it, On «)uly 17th, Mrs Lelnnstedt came to see him by the half-past three train. She told him that tho castor oil he had ordered, had set up diarrhtea, Her exact words wsro, " that the castor oil had continued to act," and that Mrs llrooks had not been able to sleep since the conlinement. There was no reason to ask if any membranes had cqine away, because tlio woman should have certainly mentioned it. He asked if there' had been any shivering, fevorishuess, or pain. She answered that none of these symptoms were present. Neither was there any voinjting. He concluded that the bowels had been set jn action by the castor oil. He did not order the woman to sit up in bed, ns stated. No medical man would. He told her to giro one more dose of castor oil, and if the patient was not better, to send for him. On Saturday lie received a telegram from Brooks, thathe was not satisfied with plaintiff's treatment. Heard of the death of Mrs Brooks, on the following Monday. First heard of this action about three weeks ago, live days before the summons was served. Hearing'of the death, ho concluded jt was caused by a dirty syringe or other Hiicleanness, Gould not catch the train, so rode to Mauriceville. Saw Brooks when ho came back. Told Brooks everything was satisfactory. P.pwnall; He loft Mrs flrooks ii| a normal cqijilitioiij pulse liPltlial, aq<J on the !'ejtra \yol!" , side; oould not be better, Satislied himself thai the placenta was i entire. It was the custom to tivist ; tho membranes iu taking them away : to bring them away cleaner. It ( would be impossible to say whether , a piece had not been brought away ] —excepting it was a large piece. ( He was suro there was not a largo , piece left, as the uterus could not ] have contracted had that been the case, Did not'tell Mrs Goodgame , auytliing about after-pains. After- j pains are duo to two causes; expul-' \ |eions of membrane, or the irregular! , .contraction of the uterus, He accounted for Mrs Goodgamo's shite- (

ments by their being put into her [mouth by some other person. He did not tell Mrs Lehmstedt to allow Mrs Brooks to recline up for half an hour next day. He ordered her to syringe with Condy's fluid or hot water. Boiled water was antiseptic. He would not state that pieces of membrane might come away unless he was sure that something was left, and he would keep his eye on the case. Had he any reason to sopticajmia, be would have away at once to • see the patient. Mrs Lehmstedt did not tell him of thirst or any irritability; she mentioned sleeplessness. To His Honor Did not think he had a right to see Brooks' wife should Brooks say he was not to see her, but would use every endeavour by persuasion, to be allowed to see her. Dr. Rawson when giviug evi-i dnnco alluded to the uterine douche. Mrs Broncbley gave evidence to the visit of Bangor Brooks, who Stated his wife was very ill; had had a very bad night and his mother advised him coming to witness. Brooks explained bis wife's symptoms, and told witness that his wifo complained about damp sheets being put on her bed. On reaching Brooks' bouse found it as tidy as could be expected. The bedding was dry, Thero were no changes dry, as the clothes were banging on the line, Pointed out the necessity of cleanliness, and bedclothes were borrowed. Told Brooks to send £»• a doctor at once. Mrs Brooks ciff plained of Mrs Goodgame's treatment, and asked witness to stay with her. Understood Mrs Goodgame was sleeping with Mrs Brooks. Dr Douglas cameas sentfor and onlearning that Dr Beard had been attending the case, jumped up and asked why Dr Beard had not been sent for again, and said be bad always been on friendly terms with Dr Beard and did not wish to interfere in his caso. Dr Douglas treated the patient, who got worse, till Saturday night, when she died. She was at times wandering in her mind. She alluded to the bad treatment received from her husband, and said," Why does Bangor treat me so bad'! I never wronged him." (At times this witness was perfectly inaudible at the press table). By Mr Pownall: She connected at once the Bymptonjs of great thirst and diarrhcea with puerperal fever. Mrs Brooks complained that Mrs Goodgame put wet clothes on her, and kept bumping the cradle. People suffering from chiliUgi fever took strange likes and dishflft and fancied things. The cradle was not bumping when witness' attention was called to it by Mrs Brooks. She appeared to be in great trouble when she called out about Bangor illtreating her, and looked very pitiful. Mrs lirickson gave evidence that ' Brooks had told her husband in her presence that his wife complained of Mrs Goodgame's treatment. He i also said he should go for Dr. Beard ' if anything happened to his wife. C. Eiickson gave evidence that lie met Brooks, who said if his wifo i died, he would sue Dr. Beard for

damages. Thomas Hillas gave evidence that in conversation with Mr Rossitcr tho latter slated that he was quite satislied with Dr. Beard's statement regarding the death of his daughter, This closed the defendant's case, and the following issues were agreed upou, to be submitted to tho jury

(1). Did the defendant know or believe that a piece or pieces of membranc-Urnd been left in the uterus when ho the placenta? (2). Did defendant negligently allow a piece of membrane to remain in the uterus when he removed the placenta? (3). Having regard to the defendant's knowledge of the caso, gained (1) from present observation, on July 13th, and (2) from the information given to him by iLehmstcdt, on 17th July, did the defendant do all that a skilful medical man could reasonably be rcijuired to do in such a case P (1). Was the death of the plaintiff's wife caused by the neglect of the defendant ? (5), Did Mrs Goodgamo negligently fail to communicate to Dr. Beard symptoms which would have enabled him to form a better judgment ns to Mnßrooks' state ?

' (G). Did the treatment which Mrs Brooks rocoived from Mrs Goodgamo cause or aggravate the fever from which she died ?

(?). Did the treatment Mrs Brooks received from Mr Urcoks aggravate tlio feyvr from fl'liich slic died '< Mr Skerrott addressed tlio jury ut 4 p.m.| informing them that they must treat this most serious | charge ns if one of manslaughter. They had to consider whether ftr Beard used ordinary average ski* After dealing with the evidence full^ learned counsel concluded his address' at twenty minutes to livo o'clock. Jlr Poiviiulj then addressed the Court maintaining that the same amount of skill and precaution must be used in all cases.

His Honor, ip summing up, said an Act had been passed in England many yeijrs ago enabling tiie relations of a person kijlpd to recover damages providing they cou|d establish neglect. This action, was undor that Act, tlip persons suing being the husband pf deccasod i|m] |ier father and mother, the gipdjiaroiifs living been added that' morning, jmt there was no evidence to siio\v this was wjth their knowledge or pojisept. The persons on behalf of whom the action was brought, had not spc ; lioneithe proceedings, The state: meat of claim did not show that they had consented as lie thought should have been. On the contrary, therp was evidence that some of the relatiyes were opposed to the prpi ceedingfi. The evidence lyasfonnded 011 alleged negligence, and it would have to bo shown clearly there was negligence on • Dk Beard's part. Tlio defendant was not called upon to show- that he had done everything, but the most stringent proof of tlio alleged negligence was required from the, plaintiff, The question was what was negligence P _ Ordinarily it meant that something an ordinarily prudent man should havo done had * not' been done.' In 'this base that definition was hardly exhaustive enough. Ijefendaiit 'was a skilled practitioner and thoiury had tp fie; tide-taking into consideration all surroundingc|rcum§tances-'-whetlie)! Br Beatd yas wanting in prpfpssional skill in the treatment of this case. A pfofessiqnal man wjjs rQ. quired to exercise skill equal to the ordinary capaoity of members of his profession, such as might be reasonably and fairly expected. The amount of care which a man was bound to take, depended upon the surrounding circumstances. amount of care and caution requoßT had to be decided by the imminence > of danger, and the jury as reasonable men, had to decide whether this earo had been exercised.

His Honor then reviewed the ovideuce at considerable length.. i If the jury found for the defendant on the first two issues; there' would; be 110 need for them to go further.' 1 : The Jury refiroj) (it sfeveii o'clock] aud returning at 7.30, returned |

unanimous verdict for (tie defendant on the first two isaucs. His Honor thon ordered judgment to be entered for the defendant, with COSt-6. Before dismissing tlie jury, His Honor said lie had to thank tlicm for their attention to a somewhat lengthy case, and to tell them that he quito agreed with their finding, on tho evidenco adduced.