Court Asked To Deregister Young Woman Doctor

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27736, 13 August 1955, Page 8

Court Asked To Deregister Young Woman Doctor

(New Zealand Preet Ateociation)

DUNEDIN, August 12. An appßcation to have the an for of Sense Flerenee WHtttnghain, a 27-y ear-eld doctor, removed from the roll of medical practitioners, on which she is provisionally registered. came before the Supreme Court in Dunedin today. The application, which was contested. was made bv the General Medical Council with the consent of the Attorney-General (Mr J. K. Marshall). The Court reserved Its decision. Mr Justice Henry presided. Mr J. B. Deaker appeared in support of the application. Mr A J. H. Jeavons, leading counsel at Whittingham’s trial in Dunedin last February on a charge of murder, opposed the application. Whittingham is serving a three-year term at imprisonment imposed by Mr Justice McGregor after she was found guilty of manslaughter. In returning its verdict, the jury recommended the utmost leniency. The trial, which aroused world-wide interest was a sequel to the death of Dr. John William Saunders in the house surgeons’ quarters at file Dunedin Public Hospital on December 12, 1954. Objections Raised Before Mr Deaker began his submissions today. Mr Jeavons said that he had an application to make “embodying fairly all the embracing objections" on the matter before the Court. His Honour said that these issues could be raised in the course of Mr Jeavcns’s submissions at a later stage of the hearing. Mr Deaker said that the only provision in the Medical Practitioners’ Act, 1950, for the removal of a name was contained in Section 46. This section, be said, stated that if any person registered as a medical practitioner, or provisionally registered, had been convicted of an indictable offence subject to imprisonment for two years or upwards, application could be made to the Court for the striking off of the name. • The General Medical Council, although it made the application to the Court, had not the power itself to remove the name of a medical practitioner from the register, said Mr T'eaker. Section 46 stated that the Court might make an order “as it thought fit" "But that does not dose the door to the person concerned, as the Court can fix a time for re-registration," counsel said. “The General Medical Council may itself decide an application for reregistration and fix a time from which the re-registration operates." The provisions under New Zealand law differed from those in other countries. Mr Deaker explained. In England, the British Medical Association's council could remove a name, and the person involved could appeal to the Court. “In New Zealand." he said, "the General Medical Council has disciplinary power, but no power to remove a name from the register. It appears that the Medical Council in this case has simply to prove the conviction. This has been done." Notes of Evidence - Submitted Mr Deaker said that he had placed on the file notes of evidence On the case against Whittingham. If these notes were objected to, Deteetive-Ser-geant J. A. Marshall would give evidence of statements Whittingham had made to him at the time of her arrest. This evidence would assist the Court on coming to a decision, Mr Deaker submitted. The question of the admissibility of evidence had been discussed by Whittingham’s counsel and himself, said Vr Deaker. He thought that evidence, consisting of notes of the trial, would be adequate. “If the Court feels that it wants a background, and that all witnesses necessary should be called, then > shall ask for an adjournment,” said Mr Denker.

Mr Jeavons objected to the production of affidavits and exhibits and claimed that, in his submission, the tribunal was not competent to re-try Whittingham for her offence. The Legislature, he felt, did not intend any re-trial, said Mr Jeavons. Nor did it attempt to define what sort of conduct should produce deregistration. That was left to the discretion of the Court. If any discretion were used, then he thought that it should be in favour of the accused person. He did not object, he said, to the form of evidence, but to its content. His objection was to the use of notes of evidence and the calling of witnesses. The case, he claimed, started from the proving of the conviction. Mr Deaker, having proved the conviction, had done his worst. Objections Withdrawn At this stage of the hearing, an adjournment was taken, and after the Court had resumed, Mr Jeavons said he had considered the matter of tendering evidence. He realised the additional difficulty imposed on the Judge concerning the question of fixing a term, besides the matter of whether there should be deregistration or not, and he would therefore agree to withdraw his objections concerning evidence. There were three relevant aspects for the Court to exercise its discretion against the deregistration of Whittingham, he claimed. In the affidavit of the Registrar (Mr C. Mason), the part referring to the jury’s verdict showed that the jury had found the tragedy accidental in origin, and it had asked for the greatest clemency to be shown Whittingham, said Mr Jeavons. The effect of that finding removed from the crime all taint of criminality in the ordinary and accepted sense, and placed in the category of those unfortunate accidents the happening, which the law regarded as culpable, P® said.- Though culpable, however, it fell into a different category from ordinary crime. Then there was the remaining element of recklessness or irresponsibility, said counsel There was, said Mr Jeavons, the affidavit of Professor J. L. Wright, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the Otago Medical School, which set out facts which did much to accuse and explain the conduct of Whittingham as being something brought about by a state of health and extraordinary circumstances. The conduct was not a reflection ot a persons normal temperament, disposition, and sense of responsibility, Mr J®?*®?* K was clear from Professor Wright’s affidavit that Whittingham was, and had been for many months, in a deplorable' state of health tbe time of the happening. An affidavit by Mr Normal? Speight, who/WM senior honorary surgeon at tbe Dunedin Public Hospital, showed ? 10^L peri 2 d ta which Whittingham s health allowed her to practise her profession, she spent a considerable tune under his supervision, said Mr Jeavons. Mr Speight y, «»>te to depose that, in the prolesnonal sphere, she was an able and competent practitioner. If the Court did consider deregistrataon necraeary. Mr Jeavons asked that ■‘“"M beu » ed “ determine the limit of the period imposed. Mr Deaker Replies In reply, Mr Deaker said that this was not the case of a person involved in ordinary acts of tfrwh'geiw Hp rnghim to die almost immediately. fact which had to be taken into consideration was whether conduct of “da type was conduct becoming a “«ntaw of the medical profession.

. state of health of Whittingham bad ta-eh fully explored before wntence was imposed; said Mr Deaker, ■nd at that tmta anything in mitiaa--25? Y*? • lron 9 , X pressed on the prosiding Judge,