"Surgical Butchery"

Hastings Standard, Volume VIII, Issue 4631, 1 July 1904, Page 2

"Surgical Butchery"

iby Telegrapn.j

VYanganuJ, jo. Or HaUerleys paper, on me Lust lor Operauous, concerning a siau.-. menl in wiiK-n mi aas given nonouce to ask the Miaisiuiaruum; Health to cause inquiry to tie niaa«. was read at the Aeison Medical Congress, it is a caustic criticism, ana. condemnation of alleged "surgical but cfaery." Tho Wanganui Chronicle pub •lsJieil a summary of the discuss.on whicu loliowed the reading oi tlw paper, in which practically alt tnu speakers indorsed Dr llatherley s statements. Dr Collins (Wellington), said t'.'iat i)r Hatiierley was to be congratulated by the profession genera uy for bringing the matter before Uiem. tm aiiiiiilied that there were many cases o: appendicitis and cases in connection wiili kidney diseases where operations could very well he avoideu. l.'r Colquhoun (Duncdin; wont .so far as to conctvie unit operations were undertaken when there w a s bo ■ need for them. Dr Mackenzie (Wellington) said 'hat m ins own branch of surgery it w a s often the case thai patients con sidered a doctor to he no good it" he would not operate, and he had had cases brought to him w'liere on Ims n'conmiending certain, breathing exercises for nasal trouble, the, patients had gone to another surgeon, who had satisfied them by an operation. Dr Savage (Auckland) thought there was a certain amount of truth in some of the paper—not t'hat operations were undertaken for pro!;;, but t'hat a certain number of unnecessary operations were undertaken Dr Pollen <V.V!in«;ion) umsiidercd th;it the whole paper was instiled by. and was probably th- outcome of ■d wave of over-operating which o-s „ver !\ew Zealand some vr- ;[ rs Hi;'". ,i.nd which he was "hvi in ' ■ was reci'dn- .'->vt. <; ,\ n > :i . ...... !n( j been re :l d four or live wars ago ' t would have been more useful as a. " warning to reckless- surgeons.