CANCER CASE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18152, 15 August 1924, Page 11

CANCER CASE.

AJBRAMS METHOD SCOUTED. ' f.T£SMS ; association rtLraiAic.. 1 AUCKLAND, August. 14. la tie Supreme Court to-day. the b£ ar '. in'g was resumed of. the ease in whicn Marjory Mary Ann Lawrence. "if; o. Edward. Francis Lawrence, of- Hamilton, sought, to recover £2OOO damsgea from Dr. H. Dundas Mackenzie,Auckland, alleging negligence in treatment .and .'false £nd fraudulent representations made for the purpose of mdticin»•'her to undergo such treatment.

:Dr. Bruce MacKenzie st?.ted in evldfence that .he visited defendant in response to a general invitation to investigate the Ab/apis machine. Defend&n. promised to make some tests of fciood submitted; by witness, but after much delay defendant' refused to earn* out his promise, giving as a reason that witnes was not an honest investigator. Witness said that the principle of the machine was that every disease had its'.special rate of .Tadio activity, and the claim was that the application at this rate .would cure the disease. Other claims were made, such as it could tell the religion, sex. and paternity. . He .classed, some of th- - claims as ridiculous nonsense. He arrived -at the conclusion ..that so far as the method was.said to rest upon a recognised scientific basis, it was an absolute fraud and-hopeless. Edwin Francis Lawrence, husband of plaintiff, said his wife did not want to undergo an operation if she could 3void it, but she.had never refused an operation. Witness at the outset did not tell defendant that Dr. Joseph had said the trouble, might turn to cancer, but he did so later. Defendant then said she had no ! . cancer whatever.

Dr. Hugh Douglas, surgeon, of Hamilton, said he had 'been practising for 2S'years,-and a great many cancer cases bad passed through his hands. He diagnosed cancer in the C3se of Mrs Lawrence in October, 1933. She was suffering from advanced cancer of the breast, and he advised dn immediate operation. He judged that the disease had been prosent at least six months. It might have existed for twelve-months, or even longer. It was a matter of common medical knowledge that cancer . frequently fcn'parycaed on chronic inflammation of the breast, especially in elderly women. If witness found that chronic inflammation of the breast did not respond to medical treatment in three months, at the oulside, he would resort to surgery. If after six weeks the breast became worse he would operate, and if he'were not a surgeon he would advise an operatir n. A medical man would not do his duty if he did not take, this course. .

His Honour: Would you operate to remove cancer or to prevent the development of'cancer? '

. Witness: For both.. ; If.there were cancer would operation be the only, course? —Yes. . With early cancer?-—I should say so. Mr Strang (for plaintiff): The earlier the operation'the greater the chance of success?— Yes. Have Mrs ;Lawrence 's chances . of complete recovery been prejudiced by delay?—' Yes- very much. In an operation for early, cancer, if it is thoroughly -done/the chande of recovery is about 40 per cent. In an operation for canc.cr.at- the stage reached in Sirs Lawrence's ease, the "chances are reduced by half. - - j Kenneth Mackenzie, surgeon, said that where cancer-was confined to the bre'ast the operation would result in a cure in about CO per cent.-of cases. ■Ho supported this .'.viffsv by quoting from, the collected- paipers of the Mayo clinic, in IJV22, that if all.cases of cancer of the breast could be recognised early 75 to 80 per pent, could be '. permanently cured. In modern times the, operation was practically a safo one. The -mortality was not-above ono to three per cent. '

Plaintiff Gives Evidence.. • Plaintiff stated • that "when she first saw defendant he took a sample of her blood from her car, plaeed it on blot-ting-paper, and after examining it said, "You are a lucky •woman," adding- that there was no cancer, and no need to punch holes in her. Defendant stated that he could cure her:,without dpcration, with four or iive' weeks' treatment. This, treatment Teas' done on chairs, > with plates, with -wires attached, . which were placed upon' different parts of . her body. , - After a time ishe told .defendant that she still had pains, and.asked if she veaa ■ being.cured. He said, "Yes." On one' occasion he said that the pains were caused by the germs '.'dying hard." After' five!"weeks' treatment defendant told her that the.trouble was cleared up. The swelling of the breast had then increased,' and she - was suffering continuous pain. Subsequently ' she had three weeks"- more l treatment' without relief from pp.Ln. She saw defendant four months later, having had no relief meanwhile. He ,advised further treatment, which she underwent. After another examination defendant said there was nothing to .worry about, .adding that the swelling might take weeks, or •months, to disperse.. Later, she, wrote ,to the defendant, stating that sfio felt better in general health, but was- still worried about her broast. Defendant suggested seeing him again. She did so. Defendant took another blood test, and then asked Tier what she bad been doing to * 'get her trouble." Plaintiff. replied : "What trouble-? Defendant said: Need you ask? He then said she had cancer of the breast. He advised her to 'have an imnifediate operation. Plaintiff said to defendant: "What do you mean by saying I, have cancer in my breast?. When X came to you months ago you said I had not got cancer. .. 'Defendant replied: Well you have got 'it 'now.. He said' she -might live twelve months or two years. Witness said she attended the Hickson rMission; at Hamilton vrithou-t ■ rasu.lt, aijjd then underwent an operation by Dr. .Joseph. She paid defendant about -forty pounds. ' i Asked why she had delayed operation , so* long, witaiss, said defendant stated 'that, it would probably take twelve months'to effect a cure.

No Evidence of I*ra.nd. 'At'this stage, Mr Johnstone (for defendant) submitted that'there was no evidence : to go,before the jury on the alternative cause of . action. ■Hi6 Hononr: I don't thijjji there is. It. is' a. case of negligence, or bo negligence. •» ■ 1 ' ■■ Mr Dickson, opening for the defence, said the question was a simple one: Had defendant been gniltv of' negligence in performing his dutv as a physician?!' Defendant had ..used two methods of diagnosis: The ordinary clinical-method of physician, afid, as an adjunct,. .the Abraxas' system. Dr. Mackenzie' -was not a member. of the B.M.A.' He was, however,; a doctor, bora, iji. New Zealand, who. had practised medicine for twenty, to thirty jrsajT3 with, vast experience and .an. unblemished record- ' When plaintiff was advised in.Hamilton She went to defendant ' She did not'.xrant an operation, and she had'"hQ9Jd'boi? he had< effected cores by the. Abrams method. When defendant saw plaintiff in August, his diagnosis of chronic mastitis was corat foot Of SSSt COITO)