MACKENZIE CASE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 20 March 1925, Page 5

MACKENZIE CASE.

EVIDENCE CONCLUDED

ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL

(.BY TBLXGBAPB PBESS ASSOCIATION. i AUCKLAND, March 19. The action against Dr. Dundas Mackenzie was concluded at the Supreme Court to-day. Dr. Pettit, cross-examined, said that if a patient had cancer of the rectum in view of the terrible nature of an operation he would advise against, it, and he would advise the Abrams treatment. There would not be a hope of ultimate recovery, but treating would alleviate the pain for a time. If the disease was in a very early stage he would advise an operation, and not the Aljrams treatment. . He would advise that the operation be followed by. the Abrams treatment. He did not affirm that the Abrams treatment could cure.' In some cases of cancer the symptoms subsided, and a patient to all appearances became well. He did not claim to diagnose by the machine alone. The fact that successful tests had been previously carried out had been publicly known for years, and it had not deterred the profession, generally from declaring the method a fraud. His Honor: But that was not the attitude taken up by the B.M.A. or Sir Thomas Horder. * Mr Dickson (for Dundas. Mackenzie), addressing the court, said the only infamous conduct with which Mackenzie was charged was.that he had practised the system without an honest belief in it. Even if he made a wrong diagnosis in the case of the woman who died that was not the charge. The question was: “Is the system a fraud or is it not?” If it is genuine, does he believe it or not? If it is a genuine system is he not- entitled to' believe in. it?” - 1 - Vv-V E:

The question as to whether or not he had been frightening people into taking his treatment was beside the point; all suggestions of this type made against Mackenzie should be rejected by the court.. He suggested the evidence was. overwhelming. The three points to be considered were: Was the Abrams system a fraud ?;. did Mackenzie know it was a fraud if it was a fraud?; if it was not a fraud did he believe,in It? Mr Dickson suggested that the members of the B.M.A. who had not investigated the system should~be'more tolerant in their attitude, towards one who thought differently from themselves. It was not a fair attitude, and not an attitude that the Law Society would adopt towards members of the legal profession who did not think as themselves. His Honor said he did riot wish to hear the 8.M.A,. condemned arid censured. Mr Dickgon had condemned the B.M.A. hell, book and 1 candle, and it did not help the case to throw mud. His Honor was there to deal with the facts.

Mr Meredith, in his address, said that irrespective of whether the Abrams treatment had a scieritific basis or not the allegation was that Mackenzie had used it in such a way that he had made it a vehicle of fraud to obtain people’s money improperly. His suggestion was that Mackenzie used the term cancer for the purpose of getting people to undertake his treatment. Mackenzie held himself out as a specialist in cancer, and developed from a condition of practice described as practically nil when, he arrived back from America jto treating between 2500 and 3000 patients, fie must have been in receipt of an enormously large income. If defendant were honest he should have told his patients that it was a pre-cancerous condition they had and not cancer. One of the strongest matters for the .consideration of the court jhad been his refusal to make a satisfactory test, and' Dr. W. Pettit also declined thus to show his faith in the system. His Honor: All over the world there are scientists at work endeavouring to discover the cause of caricer. and if there is any cure there was the opportunity for a test. - - -*■ Judgment was reserved. .