DOCTOR SUED.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18151, 14 August 1924, Page 9

DOCTOR SUED.

CANCER PATIENT'S CLAIM ALLEGED NEGLIGENT TREATMENT. (PE.ES3 ASSOCIATION" TELEGSAa.)

AUCKLAND, August 13. An action of peculiar interest was commenced at the Supreme Court before Mr Justice fcti-inger and u jury of twelve. Marjory Mary Ann Lawrence, wife of Edward Francis Lawrence, of Hamilton, sought to recover £2OOO damages from Dr. H. Dundas Mackenzie, of Auckland, alleging negligence in treatment and false and fraudulent representations made for the purpose of inducing her to undergo such treatment. Air F. Strang appeared for plaintiff, and Mr A H. Johnstone, with Mr Dickson, for defendant.

In Her claim, plaintiff set forth that on August 3rd, 1922, she consulted defendant concerning ;i growth on a breast, and was informed by defendant that she could be cured by treatment, and that an operation to remove the growth would not be necessary. Plaintiff submitted herself to defendant's treatment for about eight weeks, toward the end of 1922, and again for about two weeks in March, 1923. 1 laintiff alleged that during and after the treatment she complained on several occasions that the pain was more acute and the swelling larger and 'harder than before treatment, to which defendant replied that in time the lumps would disappear. Further, plaintiff alleged that at the expiry of the treatment defendant informed' hotthat she had been cured, and that, all the disease had been removed from her system ; that in reliance upon this assurance she took no steps to obtain further or other advice till September 1923, during which period she suffered intense and ever-increasing nhvsioal and mental pain. In September, '1923, she called on defendant again at hjs suggestion, when lie informed her foithe first time that alio was suffering from cancer. In October she obtained independent advice that the growth in her breast was cancerous, and the affected parts we-ro . thereon removed by surgical operation. Plaintiff sought to recover £1950 genernl damages, and £SO special damages.

The defence was a general denial of the allegations. As a further- defence defendant said that in addition to practisinc: as an ordinary medical practitioner he was a specialist in the method of diagnosis an'd treatment of disease discovered by Dr. Abrams, of San Francisco, which, although attacked by some medical authorities, was approved by others, and had teen highly successful. By the Abrams treatment it was possible practically to arrest cancer under certain conditions, provided it had not gone beyond a certain stage, and in many cases to alleviate suffering. Plaintiff informed defendant that she did not want an operation. He treated her under the Abrams system to alleviate her condition, and check the condition of the breast. Plaintiff consulted defendant, not as a surgeon, but for treatment by the Abrams system, which defendant was competent and qualified to apply, and he did so carefully and skilfully.

Dr. A. Joseph, of Hamilton, said that when plaintiff consulted him in June, 1922, he came to the conclusion that she had an inflammatory condition of the breast, the exact nature of which he was not then able to determine. He prescribed rest and ointment, but after a month he found her condition infinitely worse. He told her an operation was necessary. Dr. Spencer confirmed his opinion, and it was arranged for an operation to be performed at the Waikato Public Hospital. When he saw the breast about a year after, he recognised at once that there was now a huge advanced cancer. He had thought that plaintiff had been operated on, as arranged, and asked her what sho had been doing. She said that she had been undergoing treatment in Auckland. As to that treatment witness was of the opinion that no man was justified in allowing a breast to go on that extent without drastic treatment. Had the patient been operated on in the first instance it would have been a comparatively minor operation not entailing the removal of one-tenth of the tissue which had finally to be removed. The operation was successful, and the patient recovered. However, he would not say that a cancerous condition was not now present. He had examined plaintiff as recently as August Bth, and was by no means satisfied Aat the .growth was not reappearing in the vicinity of the shoulder. There was a swelling there which had not previously existed. Had the operation been performed in the first instance the chances of a complete recovery would have been infinitely greater.

Operations-for Cancer. Mr Johnstone: Are not half the diagnoses of doctors to-day wrong? Dr. Joseph: I would not say that. Well, a considerable number?— Yes. Removal of the breast is a very serious operation to advise? —In the field of surgery it is not one of the-most serious operations. It is a grave operation. No medical man knows the origin of cancer—That is so. Or knows anything about treatment excepting by operation?—l won't say. What other treatment is there?— Ray treatment. Do you seriously suggest to his Honour and the jury that X : rays can be used in ordinary cancer with hopes of success? —Yes. Have you tried it ?—No. , Do you know anyone who has? ' His Honour: We had a case in Court the other day of a man who had what was said to be a cancerous growth on his hand, treated' with X-rays. Witness said X-rays and radium also were extensively used' in cancer treatinent, and there were cases supposed to have been cured by such means. He refused to agree with an opinion quoted by counsel that not one case in 500 permanently recovered after operation for cancer. It was likely that there was a large field of medicine opposed to operation for cancer, but witness held that' there were cases of purely localised cancer. His Honour: What chance did Mrs Lawrence have apart from this operation?—No chance in the world if left in that condition. How long would alio have lived?—l should say six months would have been the limit. Then the effect or the operation, even supposing the patient may not live for two years, is that she is free from pain, and has a longer lease of life?—'' Yes. Mr Johnstone: The disease may have progressed enormously during the six months prior to operation ?—lt may have. Witness stated that very little was known about cancer. He admitted that the cutting-away of diseased tissue was liable to cause the disease to spread rapidly if everything were not removed.

Walter Gilmour, pathologist, at Auckland Hospital, said no man had produced evidence that he could cure cancer by non-surgical means. The case was adjourned.