DEATH UNDER AN ANAESTHETIC

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21400, 16 February 1935, Page 5

DEATH UNDER AN ANAESTHETIC

COLLAPSE IN DENTIST'S t^HAIR CORONER'S COMMENT AT INQUEST "This is one of those unfortunate accidents which always may occur in operations of this kind," said the coroner, Mr E. D. Mosley, in giving his verdict at an : inquest yesterday afternoon, into the death of Ernest William Armiger, a builder, aged 22, of Riccarton road. Armiger died on January 14 in the surgery of Mr E. A. Suckling, while two teeth were being removed under an anaesthetic administered by Dr. Robinson E. Hall. The coroner returned a verdict thai Armiger's death was due to the failure of respiratory and heart centres, brought about by anaesthesia and shock assisted by a condition of status lymphaticus, adding that every care seemed to have been taken in the administering of the anaesthetic, which was of a well-known standard brand. Giving his finding, the coroner added that although Armiger's parents would no doubt have received a great shock that their son should have met his death in this way, especially as he was in the hands of such well-skilled practitioners as Dr. Hall and Mr Suckling, they would be more satisfied now that further light had been thrown on the death by the report furnished by the pathologist at the Public Hospital (Dr. A. B. Pearson). Dr. Pearson's report stated that a contributory cause of the death had been status lymphaticus, a condition which might exist in young and adolescent people. This was a dangerousfactor when anaesthetic was administered, but could be detected only/by a very close examination, far closer than the routine examination made by doctors before administering anaesthetic. The inquest was conducted by Sergeant Harrison. Mr J. D. Hutchison represented Armiger's parents. Dcrtist's Evidence Ernest Art'm- Suckling, a dental ; surgeon, c r Cambridge terrace, said that at 11.30 a.m. on January 14 he began an operation in his surgery on Armiger for the removal of two impacted third molars. Dr. Hall administered the anaesthetic. Everything went well until Dr. Hall detected signs of collapse and asked witness to stop. This he did, and after some minutes the patient seemed all right again and he resumed the operation. No fur- > ther anaesthetic was administered. One tooth had been removed, and the second was bemg taken out. After working for about half a minute the doctor stopped him again and commenced artificial respiration. An injection of strychnine was given, followed by administrations of oxygen. Later, camphor in oil was injected, and Dr. W. Aitken was called in, and he gave an injection of adrenalin into the heart. Artificial respiration was continued for about half an hour. The patient did not recover, and died. To Mr Hutchison witness said that the patient was sent to him as one for a specialist because the teeth were horizontal to the jaw and removal was difficult. It required an anaesthetic. From soon after the operation began Armiger did not appear to be a very good patient for an anaesthetic. There was no reason to consider that the operation should not have been continued when the patient recovered from his first lapse. Pure Chloroform Dr. Robinson Early Hall corroborated the evidence Of the previous witness. He said that pure chloroform was used. When the patient recovered from the first lapse witness asked Mr Suckling how much more work he had to do, and he replied that he thought he could lift the second tooth out. Witness told him to go ahead, but did not administer any more anaesthetic.' The operation had been in progress about 40 minutes when the patient's condition became low the first time. To the coroner, witness said he gave the patient the routine examination of the heart and chest before administering the anaesthetic. To Mr Hutchison, witness said that both the shock of the operation and the anaesthetic might have contributed to the patient's lapse. He considered whether the operation should go on after the first lapse, and decided that as there was not a great deal to be done by Mr Suckling it would be safe. Arthur Busby Pearson, pathologist at the Public Hospital, stated that he had conducted a post-mortem on'! the body of Armiger. The death was ' due, in his opinion, to failure of the respiratory and heart centres brought about by anaesthesia. The patient had had a condition of status lymphaticus. This condition might exist in young ! and adolescent people. Its existence was dangerous when an anaesthetic was administered, but it could not be detected without careful examination. To Mr Hutchison, witness said that science had not yet advanced to the extent of providing a diagnosis for this condition. It was rare. The coroner: This is like any other case, the chance has to be taken. The coroner returned his. verdict in accordance with "Dr. Pearson's evidence.