PATIENT’S CLAIM

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 16 August 1924, Page 5

PATIENT’S CLAIM

CHARGES AGAINST DOCTOR. ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE. (BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND, Aug. 15. The hearing ol : evidence in the case in which Airs Lawrence, of Hamilton, claims £2OOO damages for alleged negligent treatment by Dr. Dunctas AlacKenzie was concluded to-day. The defendant, Henry Dundas AlacKenzie, said he had been practising medicine for 28 years. In addition to ordinary practice he used the Abrams method of diagnosis and treatment. When plaintiff and her nusband came to him in August, 1922, the husband said a doctor advised an operation, buthis wife refused to have it done. He examined her by ordinary clinicift methods, which he checked by the Abrams method. The condition of Airs Lawrence was a. common one.. He told her that in his opinion it was a case of mastitis and not cancer. She asked if he could curs, her, and he said there was a reasonable hope of the breast responding to treatment without an operation. In the opinion of defendant only four or five per cent, of the cases of globular , mastitis turned to cancer. He put Airs Lawrence under the Abrams system. That was what she came for. Defendant had successfully treated many cases of breast trouble by the Abrams system. He did not believe in an operation for mastitis. To .be of any use at all for the eradication of cancer an operation would have to be very extensive and very serious, and ha would not advise a-n operation except in malignant cases. Afte.r the first five weeks’ treatment Airs Lawrence left without consulting him about going away. She had further treatment from October 12 io 27, and next year she had seven days’ treatment in Alarch. AY hen she left him on Sepjtember 8 it was without asking his advice, and it was not advisable for her to go away at that stage-. She came back without announcing her intention, as she did in Alarch of the following year. He had not told her she was cured He saw her in September, 1923. The diagnosis showed ‘'carcinoma of the breast 10 ohms and carcinoma of the gullet 10 ohms,” and he advised the removal of the breast. Plaintiff told him she had bruised her breast. The first indication he received of being accused of negligence was when he received a letter from Airs Lawrence’s solicitor. In September, 1923, defendant advised an operation, and her delay in waiting for another month may have been fatal. AVhen he advised her to go into hospital in Auckland it was with the idea of getting a surgeon to operate. He did not propose to operate himself. Defendant said he had worked with Dr. Abrams foir three months. He was with him in 1920 and he went back in 1922. Dr. A bra-ms had taught this work since 1912, ‘‘but only to a very few.” Cancer might easily have developed in between her visits to him. He had known cancer to develop and cause death within two months. Defendant denied having told Airs Lawrence when she complained of much pain that “the germs were dying hard,” or that he told her she need not see any more doctors. He also denied that lie told her she could go home and return for further treatment- after he came back from America. He did not tell Airs Lawrence that she was cured. Defendant denied that hei told Airs Lawrence that- he could cure her “without punching holes in her.” He also denied having told plaintiff that she would be a surprise for the Hamilton doctors, as he had cured her without an operation, or that on December 23 het told her how long she was or was not going to live.

Mr Strang (for plaintiff): You do claim a more scientific accurate diagnosis by the Abrams method than by ordinary clinical methods? Witness: I do think we can get a greater proportion of accurate diagnoses. Defendant was cross-examined as to the results of the blood test. Asked how did the breast compare in March, 1923, as with August, 1922, defendant hesitated to answer, and His Honor asked him whether he did not keep records of his cases. He said he did not. His Honor; Then you are depending entirely on your memory? Witness: Yes. You have a great many patients haven’t you?—Not now I am being persecuted by the British Medical Association. But have you no records?—My nurse keeps records. A hen have you one of Mrs Lawrence? No, it is an old case. Ido not keep records over twelve months. Mr Strang; You got a letter from me m November, 1.923, threatening action. Did you not keep Mrs Lawfence’s records ‘then ?—No. You knew they would be wanted?— No. The year ends on November 1, Air Strang: Oh! I was just seven days too late with my letter; that is a. pity. Mr Strang asked defendant regarding the case of Mrs (since deceased of cancer). “Did you cure her?” lie demanded. Beiendant: No, and I did not promise Did you tell her husband that, you had removed all the cancer out of her body 'r —No. Mrs is dead? —Yes. Mrs - is dead. You didn’t cure hei r' No. What I did to Mrs was to save her an enormous amount of suffering. Questioned as to his qualifications, defendant said be was a graduate of the Homeolathic Medical College, Missouri, U.S.A and commenced practice in New Zealand in 1896. Mr Strang; [ s that college still in existence? Witness: I can’t tell you. 1 suggest it went ,right out in 190S 9 1 do not know. Defendant said he had taken a lull six months course in biology at Dun Com J 89 2; i l **"*”* be was \ew 7nll al| tohaemic surgeon left in and - ,he others had died or lelt the country. He had also trained under Dr. Pratt of Chicago, in orific.al surgery. H e hatl pr ~ t on some patients, hut not many The object of this was to free nerves tint wore pinched and causing a drain on the system. " 011 . idiam Haddon Pettit, medical praebv the' ’ \T h ° had himself been treated I } brams system, said he pracahled.,tlld Co ' , ? ldeied the method su.itTen r\ a r ll n et t 0 oth<ir treatment self a S a f- ie ’ " ho . Ascribed himself a sa medical practitioner of Puke kohe but not now on the rods' safd fis Lawrence told him she had received a blow on thedneast since being -treated by the defendant. • Lawrence, recalled, denied fell ing Dalziell she had received a blow tne brUlse ‘ She had not -^reived The evidence has concluded.