UNAUTHORISED OPERATION.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19149, 4 November 1927, Page 11

UNAUTHORISED OPERATION.

CLAIM AGAINST DOCTORS.

PLAINTIFF AWARDED £IOO. (special to thb friss.) TIMARU, November 3. Damages amounting to £IOO were assessed against Drs. T. L. Parr and W. H. Unwin, when B. P. Conlon, a boy of 18 years, through his father, B. Conlon, proceeded against the South Canterbury Hospital Board and the two doctors for £6OO for wrongful performance of an operation in the Timaru Hospital. The case was heard in the Supreme Court before his Honour Mr Justice Adams.

Mr L. E. Finch appeared for the South Canterbury Hospital Board and Mr C. A. L. TTeadwell (Wellington) for the two doctors. Mr F. D. Sargent (Christchurch) and Mr L. J. O'Connell (Timaru) appeared for plaintiff. At the conclusion of the case Mr Treadwell moved for leave to apply for a new trial. The Hospital Board, as a party to the action, was struck out, Mr Sargent stating that plaintilf did not intend to proceed with the action in respect to the Board. In opening the case ; Mr Sargent said that at the time of the operation Dr. Parr had been Superintendent of the hospital and Dr. Unwin had been on the hospital staff. The boy had been advised to undergo a minor operation on his knee and had been admitted to the hospital on January 14th. Dr. Parr had wished to graft skin on a patient named Harr, and Conlon had been asked to allow the required skin to be taken from his leg. The boy had declined to grant tne request. The skin had been taken from the boy's leg, however, although he had not agreed to this being done, and his parents had not been consulted in the matter. After the operation had been performed the boy was not able to move about. He was in pain fend had to remain in hospital | for three and a half months. The operation Mr Sargent submitted, even if the boy had sanctioned it, was an unlawful one. Conlon, in evidence, stated he was thirteen years of age. Whilst he was. being prepared for the operation on his knee, Dr. Parr asked him if he would allow a piece of skin to be taker, from his leg for grafting purposes. He had replied: "I do not know." The operation had been performed, and the part of the leg from which the skin had been taken had been very painful. The wound was dressed several times and three stitches were inserted. On leaving the hospital twenty days later he had been told to return for treatment daily for three weeks, and after that every two days. For a fortnight after that he was told to administer hot packs. Six weeks later he had returned to the hospital, where Dr. Parr examined the wound, aud Dr. Unwin told witness to return for further/ treatment. On Tuesday, March 28rd, witness was taken to the operating theatre. Afterwards witness felt pains similar to those experienced previously, and spent three and a half months in hospital. He lost four* months' schooling. Bernard Conlon, father of the boy, said he had not been approached regarding the operation on the boy for the removal of the skin. The opera- | tion "on the boy's knee had been successful, and had since required no treatment. *

This closed the case for plaintiff The Defence.

Mr Treadwell said an essential witness in the person, of the doctor who had attended the boy had not been (oalled. The'case frqm the point of view of the doctors was most serious, and the jury should think very seriously before taking the statements of a 13-year-old boy. Dr Parr had been in need of a person to offer skin for, an urgent case, and the boy on being asked nad replied: "Will to "hurt mer 7 to which Dr. Parr had replied* "No." To the boy's credit he had agreed. The only question for the jury was:" "Did the bov consent P" There was no question, of any negligence on the part of the doctors in performing the operation.

At this stage, documentary evidence by Dr. Parr t now in Lower Hutt, was read, in which he stated that at theTimaru Hospital there had been no control over Thim. He was not sure of the exact words - when the boy was •asked to allow the 'Operation to be performed, but the boy nad consented. Dr. Unwin gave evidence stating that he had suggested a skin graft to Harr's ankle, lie had been told that the boy Conlon had agreed to allow the skin to be taken from him. In his experience he had not known of eueh a wound as that made on the boy's leg taking so long to heal. To Mr Sargent, witness said that before an urgent operation was performed on a child it was customary to obtain ilie parents' consent, but if the patient came to the hospital it was taken for granted! If a boy came to his consulting room he would obtain the consent of the parents before operating, but if a boy came to him with a fish-hook in his finger he would not wait for consent before taking it out. Skin grafting wart a trivial Operation. He had been told that the boy had consented t to the operation and it was his business as senior surgeon merely to conduoji the operation. To Mr Treadwell, witness said he would take a graft from a boy should such a case arise again. Dr. W. G. Bridgman and Arthur Clifford, of the Timaru Hospital staff, both stated that they had heard the boy agree to allow the operation to be performed. Lan Patterson said he was a patient in the hospital the night before the boy was operated on, and he had heard him eay that he was going to give .some skin to Harr.

"The onus rests with the plaintiff to prove that he did not consent to the operation," said Mr Treadwell, addressing the jury. He submitted that the evidence was consistent with the boy's consent.

Mr Sargent said the only defence put up was that the boy had consented. He submitted that it did not matter whether he had or not. "Should the consent of a mere slip of a lad be taken?" he asked. Supposing that he did consent then what had he consented to? Dr. Parr had asked the boy if he would allow him to take a slight scraping of the skin and the boy had consented to that. If the boy had died then the defendants should have appeared in the dock. If the consent of a boy of thirteen years were taken then the consent of a child of five years should also be accepted. The parents were consulted when it was found that the boy was in a bad state. The hospital ward had been practically full, so why had the doctors selected the boy for the operation? In many cases of grafting the skin had been taken from the patient himself. The jury was absent for about two hours, and on returning the foreman said they could not agree as to whether plaintiff had given his consent for the operation, but they considered that plaintiff was not of sufficient age to consent to the removal of the skin. Damages were assessed at £IOO. Mr Sargent moved for judgment against both defendants, aricr Mr Treadwell moved for judgment for Dr. Unwin and for leave to move within fourteen days for judgment for defendants or for a new trial. Leave was reserved to defendants to move accordingly.