ABRAMS TREATMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 162, 11 July 1925, Page 19

ABRAMS TREATMENT.

DR. MACKENZIE'S APPEAL. JUDGE'S FINDING CONTESTED. ALLEGED ERRONEOUS INFERENCES. (By Tclegrapb.—Special io " Star.") WELLINGTON, this day. The hearing of the appeal of Henry Dundas Mackenzie, of Auckland, against a judgment of Mr. Justice Herdman ordering him to be struck off the roll of the New Zealand Medical Board, was continued this afternoon in the Court of Appeal before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Sim, and Mr. Justice Alpers. Continuing his address, Mr. M. Myers, K.C., was scathing in his criticism of the evidence of Dr. Bruce Mackenzie, who, although but 33 years of age, airily dismissed the opinions of some of the most eminent medical men in England, and was proved to know nothing about the science of electricity, of which he presumed to know so much, and also of what counsel termed "the unprofessional conduct of Dr. J. Hardio Neil in deliberately setting traps. Although Dr. Neil admitted that he was consulted professionally as far back as 1921 by patients of Dr. Mackenzie, and that at that time, though the board objected to the method of treatment, it took no steps to ascertain it 6 nature or acquaint themselves with its operation until they had collected sufficient cases to bring an action, the board had not brought that action until 1924. Mr. Myers dwelt at length on the evidence as given in the Lower Court by Mrs. Agnes Johnson, aged 81 years, and her daughter, other evidence of Emily Isabel Hunt and her sister, and the wrong inferences which he declared his Honor Mr. Justice Herdman drew from their evidence. The first-named witness said that Dr. Mackenzie's diagnosis of the trouble in her ears was that she had cancer. Dr. Hardie Neil, on being consulted, said the trouble was caused by ordinary boils and prescribed accordingly. In the Hunt case the evidence was to the effect that Dr. Mackenzie said it was cancer in the throat. In his evidence Dr. Mackenzie denied that he said in either instance that the patients were suffering from cancer; nor was there any note in his books that he diagnosed the cases submitted to him as such. In both instances Mr. Justice Herdman said he preferred to believe the evidence of those who consulted Dr. Mackenzie rather than the evidence of Dr. Mackenzie himself. "Dr. Mackenzie's note is scrappy," his Honor said, "and as he so often showed himself at a disadvantage when undergoing examination, I prefer to accept the evidence of the sufferers. And so I think I am justified in finding as a fact that he did state that he had found cancer, and that he made the statement without justification." Those inferences which his Honor drew from that evidence were, Mr. Myers contended, erroneous. "And if your Honors find," he proceeded, 'that Dr. Mackenzie did tell those women they had cancer, then that is an end. to my case. But I contend most emphatically that he did not tell them any such thing." Tn conclusion, Mr. Myers submitted that he had proved that Dr. Mackenzie's conduct was consistent with an honest • belief in the machine he was using and the method he was employing, and that the finding in the Court below was wrong. The Court adjourned until 10.30 on Monday morning, when the case for the respondent will be heard.