Damage Claim Follows Death Under Anaesthetic

Northern Advocate, 18 March 1948, Page 7

Damage Claim Follows Death Under Anaesthetic

AUCKLAND, Thu. (Sp.).—The use of chloroform in operations was discussed in the Supreme Court yesterday during the hearing of a claim for £4OOO damages on behalf of the widow and child of George Victor Sandilands, who died in the Auckland Hospital, against the Auckland Hospital Board. The claim was brought by the Public Trustee.

Mr Richmond, for the plaintiff, said that Sandilands, who was aged 26, underwent a nasal operation in which a combination of chloroform and adrenalin was used. Evidence would be produced to show that this was contrary to standard medical teaching and against the advice of medical literature which abounded in warnings against the use of these drugs. The claim for damages was based partly on the probable financial loss which the widow and child would suffer through the loss of the husband’s earnings in the Post and Telegraph Department where he had prospects of advancement. DOCTOR'S EVIDENCE After medical opinion on Sandiland's condition before the operation had been heard, evidence was given by Dr G. F. V. Anson, director of anaesthesia employed by the Auckland Hospital Board. He said that the patient was dead, so far as he could see, when witness arrived at the theatre. Witness had considered the use of a combination of chloroform and adrenalin a dangerous practice and afterwards gave instructions to surgeons and anaesthetists that adrenalin should not 'be used when anaesthesia was produced with chloroform or a mixture containing chloroform. Witness added that the use of chloroform had practically been abandoned in big clinics and teaching schools. The number of deaths under light anaesthesia was not the only reason for condemning its use. Its administration sometimes damaged the body tissues. Deaths were found to be due to the disordered state of the heart brought about by chloroform. POWERFUL DRUG Witness said that adrenalin was a powerful drug which affected the circulatory muscles and the heart, and was used in nose surgery.

Mr North quoted from authorities which laid down that adrenalin should be administered before chloroform and that it was inadmissible to use it in conjunction with chloroform. Witness agreed that according to the statements Sandilands was given adrenalin after the chloroform. • From the evidence it appeared Jhat he died from ventricular fibrillation following administration of adrenalin and chloroform.

Cross-examined by Mr Meredith witness said there was opposition from one surgeon to the ban on chloroform at the Auckland Hospital and mild objection from others. He understood that the proportion of deaths from choloroform was one in 2000 and he did not agree altogether with the figures of one in 4000 submitted by counsel. MORTALITY RATE

In answer to Mr Meredith’s question if all the anaesthetics used in the hospital were safe, witness said there was a mortality rate with every anaesthetic.

When witness came to the hospital in 1945 chloroform was used chiefly in the ear, nose and throat department and only occasionally in other theatres.

Nine-tenths of the anaesthetics used in the hospital, except the department mentioned, were given with the gas and oxygen machine. When Mr Meredith produced authorities to say that the criticism of chloroform had been exaggerated, witness said the argument occurred every so often, but became less as the nests of chloroform disappeared. He said he knew that chloroform and ether were being used in the leading private hospitals in Auckland. Mr Meredith claimed that the authorities quoted by plaintiff to reinforce the argument against the use of chloroform were based on the views of one man who obtained his results from experiments on cats. Witness said that this man’s theories had not been contradicted.

The court adjourned until today.