TEETH EXTRACTION.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 51, 23 November 1907, Page 6

TEETH EXTRACTION.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES,

THE-niINEDIN CASE. (BY TELEGItArn—SPECIAL COItIIKSPOSDEST.) Dunedin, Nqvembor.22.. Tho hearing of'tho case of Harrison v. Tho Loudon Dental Company, claim £2000, for damage sustained due to alleged negligence and unskilful extraction of teeth, was continued in tlio Siiprome Court to-day, the examination of witnesses for plaintiff bciug proceoded with. Dr.' Lindo Forguson said he was of. opinion that there was some foreign body in tho man's lung. .! Dr. Roberts .said he considered plaintiff's condition consistent with what he that his trouble was duo to a tooth in his lung. . . ' Dr. Pickerell said it was permissible for a .dentist to. himself administer on anaesthetic, provided there was a second person present. .'There was always a possibility of a piece of tooth escaping from the forceps, but with proper caro this should never happon. In. the caso of a prolonged sitting it was' absolutely necessary that a skilled per,son should bo in attendance to administer tho ahacsthotic. Ho believed that the adoption of Paterson's Nasal Inhaler, used by the London-Dental Company, was a temptation to a dentist to take unnecessary risks. The patient was thereby liable to becomo too' deeply immersed-in tho anaesthetic, and if, whilo in this condition, a tooth escaped down his throat, thore was a greater possibility oft its becoming lodged in his windpipe. The escape of a tooth into a patient's lung was a danger, to'his life. It was desirable that a dentist should not be hurried while- operating, and that his attention should be centred wholly ■on his work of extracting tooth. Dr. Williams considered that there was a foreign body in the lung. Dr. Newlands deposed that the X-rays photographs showed something that might indicate the presence of a foreign substance in tho Jung. Owen Davies and Frank Armstrong, dentists, also gaye evidence. Mr. Hanlon addressed tho jury for the defence. He said that his medical witnesses wero of opinion that there was not a foreign substance in tho;lung, and that tho symptoms wero all consistent with tho theory that this man was ; suffering from tuberculosis. The doctors would also say that all that had been-found by tho X-rays was also consistent with that theory. Even, howovcr, if the jury found that there was a foreign substance in the lung, it, would rest- upon the plaintiff to: show that it'got there through the negligence of the-defendant. Whero was the-evidence of negligence? What was tho negligent act relied upon? Tho negligence alleged, as he understood, was that tho defendant used an adaptation of Paterson's 'inhaler. It was suggested that that was riot a, good instrument to uso;bccauso, forsooth, it> induced ah'operator to take risks that he should, not take. Further, that it should be used only by a skilled attendant, and that tho; number of teeth oxtracted at one sitting was too great.- What degree of skill was required for the. use of this instrument? Dr. M.Donald did not go so far as to say' that' a medical man should bo proserit. It would be shown "by. witnesses for the defence that in this instance-proper'care was exorcised by persons, who were perfectly competent,'to use tho instrument.' . The anaesthetic was administered by Miss O'Keofo, who would have eigh't'coh-'hionths' oxperionce, and Mr.Milroy supervised that part of the operation. It wbul"d' ho established by 'the evidenco that every precaution was taken. He submitted "that the plaintiff had failed to prove the essential ingredients of his case. _ ' ' DofendantMbsos,was the first witness. He said that the-nurse in attendance had administered anaesthetics in thousands of cases. AVitness himself gave tho gas in this caso. Harrisbri took the gas very well, and everything .seemed' right.' Tho nurse then took ';chargb- of' the- anaesthetic, her work being supervised'by''Mr. Milroy, who was now a qualified don'tist, but was iiot so then. The operation probably took threo or •' four minutes. ; It was almost at an end when ho noticed a. docreasq- in tho flow of blood from the sockets,-and as there was an indication of something wrong he attended to'his patient. The administration of gas ceased. ■Jlc wiped out the mouth, pulled the tongue forward, and found no obstruction in the air passage. Ho then threw back the chair and started .artificial respiration. As this ; was not successful, he sent the nurse tor nitrate of amyl. Witness restored breathing and-the pulse. Whilst the patient was onthe floor strychnine was injected into the leg. did everything ho know of. Harrison, had- relapses/and semi-relapses, but-lie 'was out of danger in less than an hour. Witness called,in. Dr. ( M'Dpnald, who attended to . the patient. . Witness. • considered his patient's condition was due ; to . cerebral anromia,- arid not to collapse, the result of suffocation, and he had'had no reason to ■alter that opinion. . ~'•:

, The. Court at this stage'adjourned till tomorrow.' ". -.. ■ . ■: