DEATH WHILE UNDER CHLOROFORM

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 112, 5 February 1919, Page 6

DEATH WHILE UNDER CHLOROFORM

CORONER'S INQUEST

SAD CASE OF A BOY

The inquest concerning the death of a ten-year-old boy named Adolphus Robert Devereaux, who died at his homo In Brooklyn whilst undergoing an operation, was concluded before the Coroner, Mr. W. G. Riddell, SrM., at the Magistrate's Ccurt yesterday morning.

Evidence ns to a post-mortem examination was given by Dr. W. Kington Fyffe, who stated that tho deceased was a nourished boy, but that both his tonsils vere enlarged and a passage at the back of the nose was enlarged by adenoids. The heart was, quite normal, but thtero was a suspicious patch resembling tubercle at tho apex of the left hing. The intestines were in a, state of inflammation, early peritonitis being present, and the tissues round the appendix 'were intensely inflamed. In his opinion the cause of death was chloroform poisoning, the deceased's vitality being,greatly lowered by peritonitis and tubercular appendicitis. Witness was not prepared to state definitely whether the deceased was jn a condition to be operated on, as he had not seen, him before the operation •was undertaken, but the heait, which would be specially examined before the anaesthetic was administered, was quite normal. In any case the deceased would have required to have been operated on for the removal of the appendix within 48 hours from the timi of his death. An operation such as deceased underwent should take about ten minutes, unless there were complications. For an operation for appendicitis it would have been essential to administer chloroform, and it was, in his opinion, even more likely •that an accident-would occur then. Dr. J. G. Thompson stated that he examined the deceased most carefully before administering the anaejttetic. Deceased's heart was quite sound, but witness was not aware that deceased was suffering from appendicitis. There were no outward indications of. it. The/anaesthetic—chloroform—was administered very slowly, and deceased took it quietly. Witness had had another operation about an hour before tho one in question, and administered the same anaesthetic from the. same bottle. The operation did not take more than from 18 to 20 minutes at the outside.' Witness watched the patient all the time. As soon as he'noticed a change in the condition of the patient he removed the mask. It was a common, thing for a patient to vomit when under -chloroform, and he did not think that deceased was going to collapse when he commenced vomiting. Shortly after the vomiting witness noticed that deceased had stopped breathing. The Coroner:--Did the father call your attention to the condition of the boy before you took the mask away? •Witness: No; ho could not see the condition of the boy. The father was in and out of the room several times, and was roneatedly asked to so out. Continuing, .witness said that artificial respiration was continued for over ; an hour. Witness was nresent at the postmortem examination held on Monday, and he did not agree that the major operation would have to be performed within forty-eight hours of the minor operation. The condition of the deceased was is Dr. Fyffo stated, but he was not prepared to, say when the operation for the removal of the appendix would have to be performed. Whilst administering the anaesthetic witness noticed that deceased was suffering from adenoids. There, was no undue delay.in the , operation—such an operation would take anything from ten minutes to. half an hour to perform. Hβ had performed hundreds of similai* operations, and had administered thousands'of anaesthetics during hie twentysix years of practice, and had never had an accident before. "

In answer to a question by the Coroner, witness said that death from the anaesthetic was slow, and as the decased died suddenly it proved that he lmfl not died from anaesthetic poisoning. He disagreed with Dr. Fyffe as to the cause of death. In his opinion it was due to the low condition of the deceased, brought about by peritonitis, and appendicitis. , . The father of deceased, Robort Essex Devereaux, asked permission to put a few,- questions to witness, as he was of the , ' opinion that the doctor's attention wik not on the boy. • ' •

The Coroner replied that if Mr. Deverenux had , any, grievance against the doctors he could ventilate it in a Civil Court. This Court was simply concerned in the cause of death.

Dr. Frederick Samuel Pope stated that it was the practice to perform minor operations at the homes of the patients, for the reason that itsaved expense. The anaesthetic was properly administered, arid , about ten minutes elapsed-before de-, leased was properly under. Ho had per- 1 formed similar operations hundreds of times. The oneration took under 15 minutes. The father was in a state of excitement, and could nolr be able to state d°finitelv how lons the operation took. He would not: state when the operation for the removal of tTie apnendix would have to be performed—probably within three or four days.; He was present at the post-mortem examination, and this revealed to him that deceased's condition was very~low. Dr. Thompson drew witness's attention to deceased's condition. The must was removed from deceased's face immediately. In his opinion the low vitality of the deceased was one of the reasons for his collapse. ' Tn delivering -his voxdict the Coroner stated that it was a most unfortunate case, not onTv for the parents, but also for the medical men concerned. One could sympathise witli the parents of the child. After reviewine the circumstances of the operation the Coroner said that he Tns satisfied from the evidence of Dr. Fyffe and Dvs. Thomnson and Pone that tlifi anaesthetic had been properly administered. Tn.his opinion no carelessness or negligence was displayed on part of Drs.' Thompson and Pope. He would find that death was due to chloroform poisoning in a boy whose vitality was greatly lowered by peritonitis and tubercular appendicitis. . ■