REMOVAL OF NAPtFE FROM ROLL

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 249, 18 July 1944, Page 3

REMOVAL OF NAPtFE FROM ROLL

Order Against Doctor

CHIEF JUSTICE HOLDS CASE PROVED

(Bv Telegraph.—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, July.l7

Holding that, the Medical. Council’s cutje had Keen proved, the Chief Justice (feir Michael Myers.) today granted an npphcation to strike the mime of George Bronlee Isdalc off the register of medical practitioners of New Zealand. Reviewing the case, Mr. Skelton said that arising out of certain inforinatiou a warrant, to search Dr. Isdale’s premises was instituted. The police seized books and interviewed various patients. As a result the matter came before the Court in October. The indictment did not include all the counts. The jury disagreed and counsel submitted that Dr. Isdalc was then put in peril. In November be wa s tried on the remaining counts and found not quilty on six conuts, the jury disagreeing in respect of the remainder. Lust Febrmirv the Crown filed a nolle prosequi. A complaint was made by the Crown to the Medical Council and that was the foundation for the present proceedings. Application was made. under section 22 of the .Medical I’ractitiouers Act, and he submitted it was limited to two grounds, first, that a practitioner had been guilty of grave impropriety or infamous conduct in a professional capacity; secondly, that a practitioner had. been convicted of an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment with hard labour for a term of two years or upward.

'The judge: Even if you are right, if it is shown in this case that Dr. Isdalc took women out into the country and gave them an anaesthetic instead of operatin': at a hospital or some other proper place and charged excessive fees it may be misconduct. Mr. Skelton: Yes. but not the misconduct relied on and not the misconduct which founded the consent of the Attor-ney-General in these proceedings.Mr. Meredith submitted that there were two bodies who could act, the Crown for a criminal prosecution and au entirely different entity, the Medical Council. If'Mr. Skelton’s contention was correct, then in the case of any conduct which savoured of criminality the Medical Council could not move till the Crown had prosecuted, and if the Crown (lid not move, then, if the argument was sound, the council could not move. His Honour said that in his view the grounds of the application were not mutually exclusive. The section in question had been passed for the protection of the public, and was intended to ensure that a medical man who committed a grave impropriety or infamous conduct in his professional capacity was not allowed to continue in the practice of his profession. As far as the second ground was concerned, an indictable offence did not necessarily refer to the conduct of a doctor in a professional respect. He might be convicted of theft or burglary or any other charge.

His Honour said be could see no force in Air. Skelton’s suggestion that Dr. Isdale had twice been placed iu peril. No doubt when he was charged with._a criminal offence bis liberty was in peril, but. that matter had been disposed of. The proceedings were taken by the Medical Council, not. because it alleged that the doctor had been guilty of criminal offences, but because it alleged that, whether or not his conduct had been criminal, it had been infamous conduct iu a professional respect. His Honour added that he must, .tJierefoie, overrule Air. Skelton's submission.

Addressing the Court, Air. Meredith submitted that the operations were always made at night, and one might almost say furtively. No answer bad been made to any of the suggestions made, nor had any explanation been offered. Air. Skelton submitted that the allegations against Dr. Isdalc bad not been established. The Crown had not established the fact of pregnancy and no operation had been proved unlawful. Mr. Skelton further submitted, in regard to the fees charged, that Dr. Isdale was a country doctor, and he was entitled fo charge for the time involved iu travelling. Tie had also ,to work at inconvenient hours. The evidence of the system in regard to the operations did not.'■establish criminality, but was consistent with innocence. Giving his decision, his Honour said that in a criminal trial accused was not required to make any explanation, ■ but it. wits quite different in these proceedings. If n prima facie case was made out. the Court was entitled to expect an answer or explanation. Dr. Isdale had not given evidence and he had made' no explanation that seemed to his Honour a mutter of much significance. At the inquiry held by the medical council, he continued, Dr. Isdale was both present 'and represented by counsel, and he was invited to make an explanation, but’he appeared Io have made none. 'The fact that there had been two abortive criminal trials was of no real weight iu these proceedings. His Honour reviewed the evidence of five female witnesses and said that in each case the technique practised by Dr. Isdale was the same. ‘‘On these facts,” said his Honour, “two medical experts have said that they have no doubt, and I say at once that: neither have I. that in each case some operation was performed for the purpose and with the result of leriuiniifiiig the patient’s pregnancy.’’ There had been a systematic course of conduct, his Honour continued. All the circumstances had au element of the clandestine. The . work nt uight. the taking of an operating table and a nurse to the patient’s own home or to a secret place in the country, the use of an anaesthetic. the excessive lee charged, ami other facts, were in his Honour’s opinion, inconsistent with any innocent explanation. "On the damning evidence adduced in support, of the application." said bis Honour, "I can come to no other conclusion, regrettnjile mid painful though it is. than that the case has been proved in respect of the five women. An order for the removal of the name of Dr. Isdale from the register must be made.”

Mr. Skelton said an appeal was being considered and his Honour directed that the order lie in the oflicc of the court and do not issue for one mouth or such extended period as might afterward be fixed op a subset|uent application, the appeal. if made, fo be brought on at the next' sittings of the Court of Appeal. The Medical Council w»s allowed £52 10/- costs, with disbursements and witDosses’ expenses.