DUNDAS MACKENZIE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 66, 19 March 1925, Page 9

DUNDAS MACKENZIE.

THE ABRAMS METHOD. MEDICAL BOARD'S MOTION. NTNTH DAY OF HEARING. The ninth day of the hearing of the Medical Board's application to have the name of Henry Dundas Mackenzie; medical practitioner, Auckland, struck off the register was reached at the Supreme Court to-day. Mr. Justice Herdman is hearing the case. Air. Dickson appears for Dr. Mackenzie, and the Medical Board is represented by Mr. Meredith and Mr. Paterson. ):' Continuing his evidence' after the "Star" went to press yesterday afternoon, Dr. William Pettit, of Auckland; stated that as a result of two years' experience he was satisfied that the Abrarns claims were well founded both as to diagnosis and treatment. The diseases that yielded the best results from the treatment were rheumatoid athriti's, chronic rheumatism, chronic neuritis, sleeping sickness, and various forms of paralysis, heart disease, and digestive disease. In cases of carcinoma the instrument gave a definite reaction, and also in sarcoma. Witness Avould not go so far as to say he could cure cancer. He did not like to speak of a "cure." The diseases he had mentioned were those that responded best to treatment. Dr. Pettit described cases he had treated with the Abrams machine. A remarkable result had been obtained in the ease of a girl suffering from sleeping sickness. A young woman suffering from exophthalmic goitre had undergone treatment, which had resulted in j her becoming fairly healthy, and] she had married. In a case where witness had diagnosed "probable caVcinoma" the lump became no longer palpable. it looked like carcinoma at the time of the examination. Mr, Justice Herdman: Can you assert positively that any proved case of cancer has been cured by this means?—Witnes3 said he could not express it in those term's, but he could say that a case diagnosed as carcinoma had shown clinically such improvement after treatment that the patient appeared to be cured. "Abrams on the Track." A number of cases of very advanced and malignant cancer cases were under treatment by witness, and in these cases he had never seen a cure. His opinion was that Abrams was on the track of something that might be of great value in time to come,- when more perfected. While it was of great value in incipient stages he had not seen advanced cases of cancer cured. In some cases there had been an, enormous relief of pain. The margin of error in diagnosis was very high. Abrams was a very valuable adjunct to the ordinary clinical method. There was nothing in the Horder report that would justify him in abandoning the method. To his mind that report strengthened the position of the Abrams practitioner. He understood that some 3000 practitioners - were using the Abrams system in America. He would say that the Auckland medical men who had attacked the method had made no attempt to investigate the' facts. Refused To Make Any Tests. When cross-examined by Mr. Meredith witness said he was not prepared to make a series of blood tests from certain hospital patients. Since he had returned from America the B.M.A. had been interested in getting him to accept a series of blood tests for the purpose of making diagnoses by the Abrams machine alone. He had stated freely that he did not rely solely upon the Abrams method as a method of examination. - His Honor: Why not submit to a dispassionate test, conducted under the supervision of the Court? There can be no suggestion of the B.M.A. interfering. —This method is delicate, and easily interfered with, and, as Sir Thomas Horder pointed out, many of the preliminary tests were negative in their result. Witness had told members of v£ i^ A - frankly that the method was difficult, and there was a percentage of error He was not going to accept a teat the validity of whicli was to stand or fall by his personal skill in the use of it. He also refused to conduct a test to show by the .machine on which of certain pieces of paper there was blood. He declined to carry out'any test. His Honor: Can you give any idea as to the percentage of error with blood r e lt Tα I?™, my cx V* r '™™ in classes I should think we got from 50 to 70 pen Ct tiE f st°a nt o e diagnoßeS - Under cross-examination by Mr Meredith on resuming this morning Dr VVm. Pettit said he would not tell a woman that if shu went to another doctor "he would cut her open, sew her up, and she would be in Waikumete in five months." He would not express himself in guch terms There were varying ways of expressing one's meaning. Mr. Justice Herdman: If such a statement were made I would consider it a brutal statement to make. When witness spoke of "carcinosis" the Judge asked whether or not that condition was "a mere matter of speculation." Witness replied that it was not. It was the functional state of cancer. Witness quoted a definition from a pocket medical dictionary— "Carcinosis, the production and development of cancer." His Honor: Then it is cancer? Witness: It is cancer in the stage before it can be detected by anatomical change. It was undoubtediy "a pathological disease. Carconoma was the organic stage of cancer. If there was definite cancer of the rectum it was one of the most appalling operations of surgery. If a. relative of witness' had cancer of the rectum, and he had the two methods of treatment at his command, Abrams and surgery, he would leave the final choice to the patient, but his advice would be that, in view of the terrible nature of the operation and the pitiable condition in which the patient continued subsequently, and the almost invariable fatal termination, his advice in most cases—certainly in an advanced case—would be against operation. He woitld advise the Abrams treatment. There would not be any hope of ultimate success, but it would alleviate tlie ppJn for the time. If it was very early, witness would advise an operation, not the Abrams treatment. He would advise the operation, to be followed; by the Abrams treatment. He did not affirm that the Abrams treatment could cure. Witness- did affirm that in some cases of cancer the symptoms subsided, and the patient, to all appearances, became well. In - reply to queries by his Honor, witness. . said he did not.claim to j diagnose disease by means" of the [machine alone. The machine was like a stethescope. Witness, personally, only claimed to use the method in conjunction with clinical methods. With regard to tests, a successful test could

only corroborate evidence of previous i successful tests. The fact that the j successful tests previously carried out 1 had been publicly known for years had j not deterred the .profession generally j from declaring the method a fraud. t His Honor: But that was not the t attitude taken up by the B.M.A. or < Sir Thomas Horder? s Witness, in reply, began to read an ] extract a publication. j The Judge said he would interpret f i the report for himself. i Mr. Dickson's Address. j In opening his address, .Mr. Dickson i said there was a clear cut issue. The point was whether or not Dr. Mackenzie had . practised the Abrams system . without honest belief. It was not a s question of whether Dr. Mackenzie should have told patients that they had j cancer, because it would be bad for < them to knowj it was not a question as i to whether he should have called other j doctors "butchers," whether he had made j wrong diagnosis, or had frightened i people into taking treatment. Nor was J it a question as to whether he had ad- < vertised himself as an Abrams practi- i tioner. This latter had been ruled by the 8.M.A., to be wrong. Any of these s things might be infamous conduct, but j that was not the point. The only in- j famous conduct with which Dr. Mackenzie was charged was that he had \ practised the system without honest be- s lief in it. Even if he made a wrong < diagnosis in the case of the woman who >l died, that was not the charge. The j question was: Is the system a fraud, \ or is it not? If it is genuine, does he ( 'believe in it or not? If it is a genuine 8 system is he not entitled to believe in .; it? The question as to whether or not j he had been frightening people into tak- j ing his treatment was beside the point. ] All suggestions of this type made against '] Dr. Mackenzie should be rejected by the \ Court. He suggested that the evidence was over-whelming. The three points to be considered j were: Was the Abrams system a fraud ? Did Dr. Mackenzie know it was a fraud? If it was not a fraud, did he believe in it? Was It All Fraud ? Continuing, Mr. Dickson said that on the one side there were a host of men who had adopted the Abrams systom, and who were prepared to stand or lall j by it. Mr. Dickson criticised Dr. Bruce Mackenzie's evidence. Sir Ernest Ruther- [ ford and Professor Milligan differed on one of the main principles of the Abrams system, as to whether vibrations were given off or not. Was this, a Civil Court, going to take sides on this most pro- 1 found scientific question. Because Dr. ] Bruce Mackenzie could not detect any - alteration in the manifestations of the machine with regard to reactions, was 1 the whole system to T>e condemned as a 1 fraud and a delusion, and Dr. Dundas ■ Mackenzie classed as a fraud of the worst type? It would be remembered that ' Dr. Bruce Mackenzie had said that Sir James Barr should be struck off the roll ' because he used the Abrams machine. With • regard to the "Scientific American," Mr. 1 Dickson asked on whose report the Court ' would act. Would it act on that of the journal mentioned, or on that of the 1 Horder committee? It could not act ! on both, for they were diametrically ' opposed. This report of the "Scientific ■ American" was supposed to be a scien- ! tific report, yet it said that "these socalled reactions were without diagnostic : value and were merely products of ■ Abrams' practitioners' minds." In face • of the findings of the Horder report, that finding was incorrect. . Counsel sug- ' gested that the. writers making that : statement were themselves suffering from j I delusions. Hosts of witnesses could have, I been called to speak to the efficacy of the treatment. Was it all illusion? Abrams had invited inquiry. Why should the invitation to see the system at first hand,-in the home of the system—the j Abrams clinic —be rejected? The only I object of making the inquiries on which ■ the "Scientific American's" report was founded, was to Increase the circulation of the paper. Yet the "scientific American's" report had been hurled at Dr. Mackenzie, and it was on that that the profession sought to deprive a man of his means of livelihood. Mr. Dickson suggested that from the trend of j the newspaper reports in England, his reading of the .Horder Committee's repo.rt, was that it tended to justify the continued ■ use of the Abrams method. ] That, he suggested, was the only fair j interpretation that could be read into; the report. More Tolerance Urged. ' Further, Mr. Dickson submitted that' all the Horder Committee's report meant was that because they could not explain why a certain phenomena took place | they were not prepared to give it the J endorsement of the B.M.A. Did the | lack of that endorsement prove or dis-1 prove the efficacy of the treatment, or' the fact that direct diagnosis could be, made ? Mr. Dickson suggested that the members of the B.M.A. who had not investigated the system should be more tolerant. Their attitude towards one who thought differently from themselves was not a fair one—not an attitude that the Law Society would adopt towards members of the legal profession who did not think as themeelves. His Honor said he did not wish to. hear the B.M.A. condemned and cen-' sured. Mr. Dickson had condemned the i B.M.A. " bell, book, and candle." It did ; not help the cause to throw mud. His Honor was there to jleal with facts. Could Not Pronounce It a Fraud. The facts on which the claim to have Dr. Dundas Mackenzie struck off the register rested had been collected by the local members of the 8.M.A., who had no knowledge of the system, said Mr. Dickson. Not one of the local medical men called by the board had any knowledge of the Abrams method that would justify his Honor in striking Mackenzie off the roll. Counsel suggested that in view of the nature of Dr. Bruce Mackenzie's evidence the whole of his evidence could only be discredited. It appeared that the B.M.A. in Auckland had been dictated to by the American Medical Association, in their attitude. If it were claimed that the Abrams machine, was a fraud, why had some reputable member of the B.M.A. not set up an Abrams' machine and made tests with it? There was no mystery about the machine. Counsel suggested that | Dr. Hardie Neil might have 'set up a! machine in his rooms, and if he found j that the results given were not. accu-1 rate, lie could have published them broadcast. But. nothing , like this had been done. Merely on a few isolated cases the Court was asked to believe | that the system was a fraud. The Court was asked to give a pronouncement on a scientific question -of worldwide importance. Ruined by the System. If the Court declared the Abrams system to be a fraud, and it were subsequently shown by a committee of investigation that it was not a fraud, then the Court would not only stuntify itself, but do a grave injustice to Dr. Dundas Mackenzie. Counsel suggested that the Court would not be justified

in deciding whether or not it was a fraud, in view of the evidence called in ■both ways. On the results obtained alone practitioners using the Abrams system were justified in continuing to use the method. The Court had decided that Dr. Dundas Mackenzie could not call evidence at a commission abroad, and it might be that, as a result, he had been deprived of the evidence of prominent men in America and England that might have been of paramount importance. He could not afford to bring these men* to New Zealand, as he had not the means." He had been , ruined by his very belief in the system. "A Genuine System." Counsel went on to suggest that the Abrams system was, in very fact, a ' system of medicine; that it was a genuine system. If counsel had carried his argument to the stage where it could be shown to 'be a genuine system, and his learned friend had not proved it to be a fraud, then it was a system. And, if it were a system, then it did not matter whether lir. Dundas Mackenzie believed -in it or not. The board relied on" thirteen cases to prove that it was not a system. His Honor asked counsel whether he seriously suggested that it was not fraudulent for a nian to practise a. system which he did not believe. Mr. Dickson said he did suggest, that. One did not have to believe in a system. Personally, he might be of opinion that -all cases should 'be tried by a jury, and he might have no faith in trial by a judge alone, yet he continued to practise at the Bar. All kinds of systems of medicine were not the same, nor were all kinds of surgery. •Mr. Dickson suggested that his learned friend was on the horns of a dilemma in that, if the charge of fraud oould not be proved, then Dr. Dundas Mackenzie could not be struck off the register. (Proceeding.)