LOSS OF A LEG

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 February 1937, Page 3

LOSS OF A LEG

NATURE CUREA SUED, LONDON, January 23. The unusual case of a man described as a “nature-curer” was brought before the King’s Bench Division last week by a plaintiff whb had lost a leg by amputation above the knee. He alleged that the operation had been necessary because of the treatment he had received from the defendant, whom he had believed to be a doctor. The hearing of the case lasted for five' days, and' the jury deliberated their decision for two hours before awarding the plaintiff damages totalling £49o’. The plaintiff, in his clhini, said that the trouble began with a corn on the little toe of his'left foot. This became septic, and in August, 1935, he consulted the defendant, and was under treatment until October, 1935, when lie insisted upon being taken to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. He was examined there and the amputation took place the next day. The plaintiff claimed that, if he had been treated competently, he would at the most only have lost his leg from below the knee. The defendant denied that he was negligent, •or that • the amputation was due to any act or default on his part. He denied that he was guilty of any breach of warranty and pleaded that when he first examined the plaintiff he found him to be suffering from severe gangrene of the left foot and a condition of swelling known as cellulitis extending upwards as far as ihc patella. He said that he therefore told the plaintiff that, in his opinion, it was practically impossible to save his foot and probably his leg, and that an amputation should be performed iiriniediately. The defendant said that the plaintiff then earnestly requested him to try to do something to save his leg, and he consented to do so, although it was, in his opinion', a nearly hopeless attempt.

THE LEGAL POSITION In summing up, Mr. Justice Atkinson said: “We know that the medical profession likes to think it is the sole repository of knowledge of the art of healing. 1 do not know that everybody agrees with that,-and in fad there i cannot be very much doubt that (here arc other practitioners who are rendering considerable public service. Herbalists are recognised legally. In the time, of Henry VIII a statute was passed recognising that all people with knowledge and experience of herbs should be permitted to practise. I And, curiously enough, that statute I has never been repealed. I “Naturopathy seems to be a combination of herbalism with certain treatment, described as nature-treat-ment. and there are certain associations which, by examination, sought 10l achieve a certain standard of skill | among persons who practise nature-1 cure. I suppose that everybody will j admit that we owe the present-day i benefits of lasting to the teaching oft naturopaths. Therefore, it does not do to disparage these unorthodox practitioners —or to jeer at them, or to pour contempt on them.” According to a legal authority, said the Judge, a man who undertook the public practice of any profession undertook that ho had the ordinary skill and knowledge necessary to perform his duly towards those resorting to

him in I hat character. His Lordship said that the issue became most serious wncn the jury considered the evidence of the plaintiff that the defendant told him. after the first few days, that he had saved his foot, and advised him to carry on to complete the cure. If the plaintiff's evidence was right, it was not a case of want of skill, but of sheer dishonesty. The jury found that the defendant was guilty of breach of duty in the advice and treatment lie gave. The total amount of damages awarded was