TEETH EXTRACTION.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 50, 22 November 1907, Page 8

TEETH EXTRACTION.

DENTIST- AND PATIENT.

CLAIM FOR £2000 DAMAGES,

.{BY . TEDEGBAPH—SPECIAL . CORBESPOHTJEBT.)

Dunedin, November 21,

. This in, the Supreme Court, before, His Honour 3ifn Justice Williams and a" special jury of twelvo, "William Harrison, tatter, of Burkes, proceeded against Philip Hubert Moses, and Walter Douglas. Brewer Pittar, carrying on business as tho London Dental. Company, for £2000, damages, alleged to,have been sustained by plaintiff owing to iho negligent;,-and, unslalfnl extraction . of his teeth,by the dofendant Moses, by which plaintiff's throat,and lungs were rjcrman : ' ently injured. j

Mr. Payno, in opening for the plaintiff, uaid that Harrison before ; he-went to the London Dental was in the primo of life, ,ond enjoying excellent health. He wont to tho dentist on a Saturday at twelve o'clock, and was taken into tho' surgery by Moses. Gas or some other anaesthetic was adminisr ' tered to him.. When ■ho ■ came. to he was 'in the''chair, and Moses was bending over him.. Plaintiff 'was .very-yill, and suffering intensely, and ■ho asked Moses what was \yn_ong. ■ , . .'/'

Moses said: "You were . very nearly; a '.;.••! ■ '■ , ; * ■;■,..•■.•;.. ■ ■.-. . ■■ : "How?", said Hamsbn. ■ . '."

.. .','y°ur tongue .went : back;irito. your throat, end .I- had a,-job to get it back-again," was . Moses'"answer. ■' . ';■ ■ '' '.■

J • Plaintiff could scarcely speak,-and-all, this , time.-•experienced great pain.- - Moses saw \t& once that something very serious had 'taken place,,and- ho sent for Dr. Marshall Macdonald. ' The '• doctor was promptly on the scone,.and decided that .plaintiff was ih too dangerous a condition to bo allowed to go home- that night, as ho might suddenly requiro medical attendance. Plaintiff never proporly recovered from that illness,' and Beyer regained his health.. Since,that hour in the -surgery he had-not had any proper sleep or rest, and indications pointed to ,his not getting, any in the'future. Something put of the ordinary must have occurred in '' that ■ surgery. As to what did happen in the 'surgery, they had only the ■evidence..of plaintiff, who. was unconscious most of the time, but in support of this they would have the'testimony of the foremost ''Dunedin medical men, who would state that something must have gone down the man's throat and entered his lunga, thus causing his present, trouble. Evidence to this effect would be given, by Drs.'Linds, Ferguson, tffacdonald, Coughtrey, and Williams, who .would say that plaintiff was suffering from '•» -serious affection of the .bronchial tubes, 'technically known as septic bronchitis; that ,his condition was extremely serious, and that he.was practically face;to face with death, for., at' any. 'moment a. fit" of. coughing might cause him to .burst a blood vessel and die of •hemorrhage, /. •• •'. : '■' ■■ '" : ';':,."•"'.

The,evidence would 'show that the plaintiff's condition and the symptoms manifested by him.could only be accounted for by the fact that there was something on his lung. If satisfied that thero was something' on his lung,: the have to determine ■whether, ordinary^precautionsThad been,,taken, to prevent such an accident ioccuring. ' Witnesses would swear there was no chance of an accident of this nature if the operator knew his business, and.that Moses, in proceeding as he did, incurred the gravestiposlible risk. It was possible to absolutely prevent a tooth going down a man's throat if the proper precautions are it would be shown, that defendant was endeavouring to take out all the man's teeth at one sitting under gas; that he'.had no skilled medical man at hand to watch the effect of the antesthotic, and that he .was,' therefore, .besides being forced to hurry his work, also obliged to attend to the administration of* gas. The nurse's duty was to use.,tho sponges and look after tho instruments. Under the circumstances thore was every possibility of t a. tooth escaping from the forceps, and a skilled dentist would say that Moses hod noright to attempt the extraction'of the thirty .teeth in the man's head at one sitting undor gas. He should have used a properly-applied anaesthetic, and had a medical man in attendance to watch its effects. The gas in this case was applied by moans of an appliance called Paterson's nasal inhaler, and it was an apparatus that should be used only by persons who understood it thoroughly. It was liablo in the hands of an unskilled ■ person to immerse a patient so deep in the anajsthetic as to make the recovery of-.consciousness an effort, and this was what had happened' in '■the present case. '

Two witnesses were examined in addition to the plaintiff, and the case was then adjourned for the day