DEATH IN HOSPITAL

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 192, 15 August 1941, Page 3

DEATH IN HOSPITAL

DURING ANAESTHETIC

IXQI'IKV BY < OKONEK

During the hearing of evidence at the inquest yesterday afternoon into the circumstances of the death of an elderly widow. Lucy Mary Pryor, at the Auckland Hospital on July 19. Dr. Walter Gilmour. acting-medical superintendent and pathologist at the hospital, said that after making a post-mortem examination his opinion was that death was due to respiratory failure during anaesthesia.

"I should like to make it clear that this has nothing to do with the administration of the anaesthetic." he said. "I am perfectly satisfied of that, and that the assistant knew how to work the machine and had enough experience to enable him to carry on. - '

Dr. D. B. Gash, house surgeon, said that deceased was taken to the operating theatre at S.lo a.m. on July 19. suffering from a broken thigh bone. The anaesthetist was Dr. Horsley. While X-ray plates were being developed. shortly after 0 a.m. Dr. Horsley left, being replaced by Mr. C. H. Garlick. a sixth-year student. Mr. Gar I irk drew his attention to the condition of the patient and witness ordered the necessary steps to be taken, but it was impossible to save the life of the deceased.

In hrr cvidenc-e Dr. Alice Horsley said she had been an honorary anaesthetist at the hospital since 1915. Following the manipulation of the limb in the first stage of the operation she adjusted the anaesthetic machine to a level normally safe for an indefinite period, and left to give another anaesthetic at the Mater Hospital.

Replying to the coroner. Mr. Hunt, witness said that she should have remained. Her action was against the hospital rules. She had. however. expected to be back for the major part of the operation, but had been delayed by a second serious operation.

"F rom what I have learned from Dr. Gilmour it probably would not have made any difference, but I do not think it is right." stated Mr Hunt.

The coroner returned a verdict of death during anaesthesia, as recorded in last night's Star, stating that there was no evidence that the anaesthetic was improperly administered or that tho woman was not under proper care. He added a rider that the attention of the Hospital Board should he drawn to the fact that the patient was not under the care of an anaesthetist for the whole of the period.