TRIANGLE OF OPPOSING EVIDENCE

Northern Advocate, 19 June 1937, Page 6

TRIANGLE OF OPPOSING EVIDENCE

NAPIER HOSPITAL INQUIRY

More Testimony About Hot-Bath Treatment [Special to “Northern Advocate”l ' NAPIER, This Day. The introduction of evidence, which, in some respects, conflicted With that of previous witnesses, was heard by.the Royal Commission, which is conducting the inquiry info hospital affairs, from one of the principal figures in the investigation into the outbreak of, venereal disease in the childrens ward at the Napier Hospital, Dr. J. Allen Berry, a member of the honorary medical staff. ' K Dr. Berry, who was closely questioned for the whole afternoon, agreed at one stage with counsel that: “We now have a triangle of conflicting testimony.” The sister in charge of Shrimpton Wf»rd (recalled) said that, on two or 'three occasions, Dr. Allen Berry asked her to consult his brother, Dr.. Harold Berrys in respect of hot bath treatment for children. With Knowledge of Doctors. Mr N; A. Foden (who is appearing for‘the Director-General of Health): Would it be unfair to suggest that the two hot baths were given with your knowledge and the knowledge of both doctors? ' Witness That is so. • I suggest they were conducting that treatment as an experiment, and they did not want too much known about it? — I would not say that. It was on Dr. Harold Berry’s advice that you raised the temperature to 112 degrees?—Through Dr. Allen Berry. You know Dr. Allen Berry could not come into the ward, so you made an appointment to meet him somewhere else?—l met him by accident when he was visiting his wife, who was a patient. Prescribed Hot Bath First. Dr. James Allen Berry,, honorary surgeon at the Napier Hospital, desscribed the treatment given to the child who died, and ’ referred to the fact that the child had been suffering from a hip disease. The treatment of the hip would take the best part of the year and the child was in plaster for two periods of six weeks each. In answer to Mr Foden regarding treatment, Dr. Berry said he was asked by the sister if there was any treatment other than the form of irrigation, which the child was already receiving.

“I said there were two, one of which was a hot bath,” witness added. “I was not sure of the exact temperature, and I looked it up and then prescribed baths. First I prescribed a hip bath.”. Dr. Berry agreed that continuance of local treatment would have been much more convenient than the oher treatments. Worth Trying,

Mr Foden: Why was it you abandoned that convenient treatment and resorted to the other? —The authority which said the treatment would clear up the trouble in eight days was such that it was worth trying. Was it novel treatment? Was it unusual?—Yes.

Mr Foden: Did that authority say the treatment war- suitable for a child two years of- age?—No. Five years of age. Did that authority say there would be a risk with a child of two? —No. So that, if another authority said there would be a risk you would agree?—No. Witness Quotes Authority. Mr Foden then asked witness to lead the authority which, he said, showed that there were risks in hot,' thermal baths for children. This was read out by witness, who pointed out that, in his opinion, this authority referred to complete baths not hip baths. Mr Foden produced a small black book, which witness said he had not seen until the last few days. Mr Foden; Will you deny you saw it last August?—Yes. You deny you saw it last year at all, then? —Yes. When you ascertained the other children were having baths did you have any discussion with the honoraries about them? —No. Why not?—lt was not my place to interfere with them. Said Nothing About It. They were using your treatment and you said nothing about it? —That is so. Do you think that is professional etiquette?—Yes. Unless you were told they would be in the dark about the treatment? — Yes. Does it not strike you that there was an air of secrecy about it? —No. Was it on your instructions that other doctors’ patients were given your treatment? —No, certainly not. You regard your conduct in the matter as consistent with the standards of the profession?—Yes,

Did you ever mention the treatment to the medical superintendent?—No. In your capacity as a. member of the hospital board you consider that embarking on the experiment as you did was in the interests of the institution? —Certainly. ■ Doctor Under Fire. Witness described at length the actual treatment given to the child, together with safeguards of his own devising, including wrapping the child in blankets after the b&th, and the taking of the temperature and the pulse at intervals. Witness produced the authority on which he had based the treatment. The, authority said the baths should start at 110 degrees, but, for the sake of caution, witness had started at 100 degrees. ’ Mr Foden: What is that treatment recommended for?—Rheumatoid arthritis. I recommended it for another disease also.

At Mr Foden’s request, witness read an authority which stated that the risk of danger was greater than the benefits which might result. To further questioning, witness said he considered the risks were negligible. When witness said he did not secure the permission of the child’s parents to try the treatment, Mr Foden asked: “Then, when children are committed to your care, you are at liberty to take action without consulting the parens?”

Witness: Yes. 4 Mr Foden: Is that in accordance with the accepted standards of the profession?—Yes. When did you stop the hot bath treatment of the little girl?—When she died. And you had nothing to do with the hot baths of the other children? —No. Witness was questioned regarding the child’s actual death, and said, inter alia, that the child’s temperature was 108.6 degrees. Mr Foden: You made a full and frank disclosure of your observations? —Certainly. Who Was to Blame? Do you remember a discussion afterwards? —Yes. Dr. Foley was blaming the sister, but I said this was not fair, as if there 1 was any blame it should rest on two men —Dr. Foley and myself. You said Dr. Foley, was blaming the sister for the child’s death?—I v do not know what he was blaming her for. Mr Mosley: Then, why did you say that if there was any blame it should be placed on Dr. Foley or yourself? Witness: I cannot recall the‘conversation, or actually what the blame was for. Inquest Question. As an experienced medical practitioner, and as one thoroughly conversant with procedure, don’t you think you were wrong in not asking for an inquest?—Thinking back, I realise it would have been wise. Asked why he did not think so at the time, witness said it was because the child died following the adoption of well established treatment, as modi-, tied by himself and there were no 5 suspicious circumstances surrounding death. ■ Mr Foden: So that if other evidence shows your treatment was not well established, your reason falls to the ground?—Yes. I put it'to you that you were the particular one to see that an inquest should be held?—No. You were not apprehensive about an inquest, were you?—No. Witness said he called on the coroner, Mr Bedford, late on the night of the child’s death. Mr. Foden: You told Mr Bedford about the hot bath treatment?—Yes. So that if Mr Bedford says you didn’t, there is an obvious discrepancy?—Yes. Mr Mosley: Mr Bedford has i sworn that Dr. Berry did not tell him. One or the other is telling an obvious untruth. Mr Foden: What did Dr. Foley tell you he was to put in the death certificate as .the cause of death?— Nothing. Dr Foley shouldered the entire responsibility for what is in it? —Yes. When asked whether he thought the contents of the death certificate mentioning heart failure and congenital dislocation of the hips, were sufficient indication of the cause of death, witness said “No,” and added that it was incomplete. The inquiry was adjourned.