WOMAN DENTIST.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 169, 22 August 1914, Page 3

WOMAN DENTIST.

PATIENT'S LIFE ENDANGERED. At Rochdale (Lancashire) last month, before his Honour Judge Spencer Hogg, a claim was made against Ada Berry, trading as R. H. Berry, extractor of teeth, of Todd Lane, Rochdale, by John Sharrocks, of 2 Stanley Place, an employee of the Rochdale Corporation. The claim was for £IOO, in respect of the alleged negligent extraction of a tooth. For the plaintiff Mr C. B. Hudson said that on November 1 the young man went to the defendant's shop to have a tooth extracted. She injected some preparation'lnto the gum twice, and the plaintiff complained of great pain in his head. There was a further injection, and at a second attempt the tooth was extracted. Ho went home in great pain, with a bottle of lotion given him by the defendant. The bleeding was so profuse that he did not apply the lotion, but called in a doctor. The next morning he went to Dr Bateman, who informed him there was a mortifying patch on the gum ami on the inside of the cheek. The doctor attended Sharrocks for ten days, and on November 13 there was profuse bleeding, and a further examination disclosed that a portion of the mouth had been burnt away, and the facial arteries were exposed. . .On the following Tuesday the bleeding restarted, and plaintiff was conveyed to the Infirmary. He remained an in-patient for a month, and for some time his life was in danger. As a result of the operation the plaintiff was off work for 18 weeks.

I)r Bateman said he found a portion of the jaw had gone, and he came to the conclusion that the preparation used was cither too strong or the instruments were not clean. The condition of the plaintiff was such that if a doctor had not been available he would have bled to death, and his condition was so serious that whilst an inmate of the Infirmary a statement was taken from him in regard to the c9.se. There woujd be a slight permanent disfigurement of the face.

The defendant, who was not legally represented, said she was taught the business of an extractor of teeth by . her brother, who, like herself, was nq£ a qualified dentist. She used a syringe to insert into the gums a preparation she obtained from a chemist, and saicl it was not possible to insert too much of the fluid. She also gave a powder for the plaintiff's use,. and she admitted that she did not know the contents of the powder. His Honour, in giving judgment, said there had been neglect in the administration of the drug, and it was that neglect which Had caused the plaintiff terrible suffering. In consequence of what happened this young man nearly lost his life, and would have lost his life on two occasions if medical assistance had not been available to stop the hemorrhage in .the mouth. It was a" pity that people who carried on this business were not compelled to pass some examination as to their fitness. He gave judgment for £BS and costs.