UNUSUAL CASE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 14 August 1924, Page 5

UNUSUAL CASE.

TREATMENT OR CANCER. CLAIM AGAINST DOCTOR. (BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.) ~ AUCKLAND, Aug. 13. The hearing was continued at the Supreme Court* to-day oeiore Mr Justice Stringer and a jury ol twelve of the case m wfficli Marjory Mary Ann Lawrence, wile ol itoward Francis Lawrence, of Hamilton, sought to recover £2OUU damages from Dr. Jfci. Dundas MacKenzie, of Auckland, alleging negligence in treatment and nuse and fraudulent representations made lor the purpose of inducing her to undergo such treatment. Mr F. otrang appeared for-the plaintiff, ami Mr A. M. Johnstone (with him Mr Dickson) for the defendant. Medical evidence from Hamilton was given as to the woman’s condition. Dr. Joseph said he saw the plaintiff in .September, 1923, and told her that he could, not hold out the hope of a. successful operation, as cancer had spread ueyond the breast, and witness performed an operation in October. "Witness stated that very little was known about cancer. He admitted that the cutting away of the diseased tissue was liable to cause the disease to spread rapidly if everything were not removed. i\ lien witness saw plaintiff j n Septem'Oer, 1923, prior to the operation, he V thought she had no chance in the world. Without an operation she would not have lived more than six months, Dr. Joseph added that- when the plaintiff’ consulted him in June, 1922, he came to the conclusion that she had .in inflammatory condition of the breast, the exact nature of which he was not then able to determine. He prescribed rest and ointment, but after a month iie found her condition distinctly woirse. He then told her an operation wasi necessary, and Dr. Spencer confirmed this jpnuon. It was arranged for an operation to be performed at the Waikato public hospital. When he saw the breast about a year after he recognised at once that there was now a huge, advanced cancer. He had thought she had been operated on as arranged, and lie asked her what she had been doing. *he said she had been undergoing * treatment in Auckland. .As to that witness was of opinion that no man uas justified in allowing a breast to go on to that extent without drastic treatment. The breast was doable the size of the other. Dr. Joseph then described the nature of the operation on Mrs Lawrence. Had the patient been operated on in ‘■he first instance it would have been a comparatively minor operation, not entailing the removal of one tenth of the tissue which had finally to be removed The witness said that the operation was successful, and the patient recovered. However, he would not saj» that- the cancerous condition was no,, now .present. He had examined Mrs Lawrence as (recently as August 8, and was by no means satisfled. that the growth was not re-appear-ing in the vicinity of the # shoulder, there was a swelling there which had not. previously existed. Had the operation been performed in the first instance the chances of a- complete recovery would have been infinitely greater. * Mr Johnstone.: Are not half the diagnosis of doctors to-day wrong? .. Br. Joseph: I ivould not- say that. Well, a considerable number?—Yes The removal of the breast is a verv serious operation to advise?—ln the field of surgery it is not one of the ‘ most- serious operations. It is a grave operation? No medical man knows the origin of cancer? —That is so. Nor knows anything about treatment excepting by operation?—! won’t’say 1 that. What other treatment i sthere?—Xray treatment. Do you seriously suggest to His Houoi and the jury that can be used in ordinary cancer cases with hopes of success ?—Yes. Have you tried it?—No. Do you know anyone who has? His Honor: We had a case in couirt the other day of a man who had what was said to be a cancerous growth on ms hand treated with X-ray. \\ itness said that X-ray and radium also was extensively used in cancer treatment, and there were cases supposed to have been cured by such means. He refused to agree with the opinion quoted by counsel that not one case in 500 permanently recovered after an operation for cancer. It, was likely that there was a large ffeld oi medicine opposed to an operation for cancer, but witness held that there were cases of purely localised cancer. Hls Honor : "What- chance did Mrs Lawson have apart from this operation?—No chance in the world. If left in that condition how long would she have lived ?—I should say six months. The.ro would have been a limit. Then the effect of the operationeven supposing the patient may not now live for two years, is thptjshe j s free from pain and has a longer lease of life?—Yes. Mr Johnstone: The disease may have progressed enormously during six months.-.prior to the- operation?—lt may have. Walter Gilmoiw, pathologist at the Auckland Hospital, said no man had produced evidence that he could cure cancer by non-surgical means The court, has adjourned.