MACKENZIE APPEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 180, 1 August 1925, Page 11

MACKENZIE APPEAL.

REASONS FOR DISMISSAL EXPLOITING SUFFERERS. TO HIS PECUNIARY ADVANTAGE. (By Telegraph.—Special s to "Star.") WELLDTGTpN, this day. The written reasons.for the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal, of Henry Dund'as Mackenzie, of Auckland, medical practitioner, against the order made by Mr. Justice Herdman removing the appellant's name from the Register of Medical Practitioners in New Zealand for infamous conduct in a professional respect because in his practise he had used the 'Abrams system of diagnosis and treatment of disease without having any honest .belief .in. the system, were' delivered., this 'morning. The Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 1924, provides in section 6, said Mr. Justice Sim in his judgment, that no medical practitioner shall be deemed guilty of grave impropriety' or infamous conduct in a professional' respect by reason. only of his having adopted and practised .any theory of medicine or surgery, if. in so doing "he has acted honestly and in good faith. The provision was not in force during the period in question in this case, but it may be taken, as Mr. Myers (counsel for appellant) suggested, as having Te- - trospectively ■ the proper construction of section' 22 of the Act of 1914. The question to be determined on the appeal was whether or not' the decision .of Mr. Justice Herdman was right. After hearing the able argument submitted by Mr. Myers oh behalf of the appellant"the, Court was of opinion that the decision was right. Mr. Myers complained that one of the grounds upon which the judge condemned his' client was that for the purposes of diagnosis Mackenzie relied almost entirely upon the Abrams system .and very rarely, resorted tcr-the ordinary clinical methods, but this does, not help to prove that Mackenzie did not honestly believe .n : the Abrams system. On the contrary it goes to show : his ■ faith in it. : Complete reliance on" the system may be foolish and reckless, but it is quite con-r sistent with honesty and good faith and Mackenzie is to be condemned only if he act-d without honesty or good faith. Anof ;r complaint made by Mr. Myers was ?!iat the judge had based his decision to some extent on the report of the Hordern Commission on the Abrams - system. -Mr.■;Myers contended that it was not fair to judge his- client's conduct during the years from 1921. to 1924 'in the Tight of a report which was no* published Until 1925. This contention, said Mr. Justice Sim, : appears to be well founded. The question of the value of, the Abrams system -" was not" directly in issue in the case. The only question was whether or not Mackenzie had acted honestly and in good faith in his use of that system. In arriving at a conclusion on this question, Mr. Justice Herdman appears to have taken the view that during the four years under consideration, no gra'ctitibner'who'acted honestly and in good faith would have relied entirely for-his diagnosis on the Abrams system.' That . view was not justified, I think, by the evidence. Mr. Myers has succeeded, - therefore, in establishing that in some ' respects the reasoning by which the judge arrived, at his .conclusion is. not entirely sound, but notwithstanding this !___*_;__}}__ cnnduaon be. r -justified. by. the. eyidence, and it v is"clear; I-think, . . from" y the. evidence, that although Mackenzie may have believed to some extent in the- Abrams system he used it, not for the purpose of benefiting the unfortunate sufferers who came to him ! for --.: relief, but for-the purpose.of exploiting "them* to.his own pecuniary advantage. -' The order fixes two years as the time after which Mackenzie,may apply for reregistration. It is unfortunate, I think, •that any period was fixed, for. it seems •undesirable that such a practitioner as Mackenzie, by obtaining registration again, should be enabled to prey on a "j.' : gullible public. ..-.,. , .