CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 16 August 1924, Page 11

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

ALLEGED NEGLIGENT TREATMENT

UiiilbU Pf-ttia

AUCKLAND, August 14. Hairing was continued iti the Supreme Court to-day of the claim fee £2OOO damages made by Mrs Lawrence figaifist Dr: DutidaS MacKenzie, alleging negligellce iti treatment and false represeiitiitiorls. Dr. Biuce MricKeriziti; stated ill evidence that he visited defendant iti response to a general ilivitatibh to investigate Abrams’s machine. Defendant promised to make some tests of blood submitted bv witness, but after much delay defendant refused to carry out his promise, giving as a reason that witness was not an honest investigator. V itness said tlie principle of tlie machine was that every disease had its special rate of radio activity, and the claim was that tile application of this late would cure disease: Oilier claims were made, such as that it could tell religion, sex. age, titill patei'tiity, He classed some of the claims as ridiculous nonsense. He arrived at the conclusion that, so far as the method was said to rest upon a recognised scientific basic, the method was an absolute fraud and hopeless. Edwin Francis Lawrence, husband ol plaintiff, said that his wife did not want, to undergo aft operation if she could avoid it, but she laid.clever refused to have ati operation,. Witness at the outset didn’t tell defendant that Dr. Joseph had said that the trouble might turn to cancer, but did so latet 1 . Defendant then said that she had tio cancel whatever. Dr, Hugh Douglas, surgeon, of Hamilton, said that he had been practising for 28 years and a great many cancer cases had passed through his hands. He diagnosed cancer in the case of Mrs Law. rencc in October, 1923. She was suffering from advanced cancer of the breast, and lie advised an immediate operation. He judged that the disease had been present for at least six months* but it might have existed for twelve months or even longer. It was a matter of common medical knowledge that cancer frequently supervened on chronic inflammation of the breast, especially-in elderly women. If witness found that chronic inflammation of the breast did not respond to medical treatment in three months at the outside he would resort to surgery. If, after six weeks, the breast became worse lie would operate, and if lie were not. a surgeon, he would advise an operation. A medical man would not do his duty if he did not take this course.

His Honour: “Would you operate to remove cancer or prevent the development of cancer?” Witness: “Both. I would he afraid of cancer.”

“If there were cancer, would an operation be the only course?”—“Yes, with early cancer, I would say so.” Mr Strang (counsel for plaintiff): “The earlier the operation the greater chance of success?” Witness: “Yes.”

“Have Mrs Lawrence’s chances of . complete recovery been prejudiced by de- J lay?”—“Yes, very much. In an oper- i ation for early cancer, if thoroughly done, the chance of recovery is about 40 j per cent. In an operation for cancer at 1 the stage reached in Mrs Lawrence, the chances are reduced by half.” Kenneth Mackenzie, surgeon, said that where cancer was confuted to the, breast, an operation in a cure in about 60 per cent, of 1 cases. He supported, this view by quoting from collected papers of the Mayo clinic, 1922, that if all cases of cancer of the breast could be recognised early, 75 to 80 per cent, could be permanently cured. In modern times the operation was practically a safe one; the mortality was not above I to 3 per cent. Plaintiff stated that when she first 4 saw defendant lie took a sample of blood from her ear, and placed it on blotting paper. After examining tho blood lie said j “You arc a lucky woman,” adding that there was no cancer and no need to punch holes in her. Defendant stated that he could cure her without an opelation with four or five weeks’ treatment. This treatment consisted in sitting on chairs with plates with wire attached upon different parts of her body. After a time she told defendant Lliat she still had pains anil; asked if slip was being cured. He said “Yes. On one occasion ho said that the pains were caused by tile germs dying hard, Alter five weeks’ treatment defendant told her | that the trouble was cleaved up. The I swelling on her breast had then increas. 1 ed and she was suffering continuous j pain. Subsequently she had three weeks more treatment without relief from pain. She saw defendant four months later, having had no relief in the mean- -, while. Defendant advised further treat-j ment, which she underwent. After an-i other examination defendant said there was nothing to worry about, adding that) tho swelling might take weeks or months j to disperse. Later, she wrote to defen- , dant stating that she felt better in general health, but was still worried about j tier breast. Defendant suggested seeing I him again, and she did so. Defendant j took 'another blood test, and then asked | her what she had been doing to ‘get her trouble.” Plaintiff replied, ‘ Wliat trouble?” Defendant said: “Need you; ask?” and then said that she bad can-', cer in tho breast. He advised her to have an immediate operation. Plaintiff said to defendant: “What- do you mean bv saving that I have cancer in my breast"? When I came to you months : ago you said I had not got cancer. Defendant replied: “Well, you have 1 got it now,” and advised her to have her breast off. He said that she might j live twelve months or two years. Wit- | ness said : “If I am a doomed woman I’ll die with my breasts on.” She attended the Hickson Mission Hamilton without result, and then underwent an operation bv Dr. Joseph. She paid defendant about £4O. Asked why she had delayed tho operation so long, witness said that , defendant had stated that it would probably take months to effect a cure. 1 •’ '" ‘ • At this stage, Mr Johnstone (for de-' i'endant) submitted ‘ that there was uo evidence to go before the jury on the alternative Cause of action. His Honour: “I don’t think there is. It is a case of negligence.” Mr Dickson, opening for the defence, said that the allegation was a simple one—had defendant been guilty of negligence in performing bis duty as a physician? Defendant bad used two methods of diagnosis, the ordinary clinical method of. the physician, and as an adjunct the Abrams -system of diagnosis. Dr. Mackenzie was not a member of the B.M.A. He was, however, a doctor born in New Zealand, who had practised medicine for twenty to thirty years with vast experience aurl an unblemished record. When plaintiff was advised in Hamilton she went to defendant. She did not want, an operation, and she. had heard how Dr. Mackenzie had effect™ -cures on the Abrams method. When I>r. Mackenzie saw plaintiff in August, 1922, his diagnosis of chronic mastitis was correct. He treated her for seven days in March. Plaintiff then left, and did not, return; to defendant bad no chance of observing her condition. Between March. 1923, and August or: September, 1923, plaintiff had developed cancer,* and because she developed can-, cer ■ when not receiving defendant s treatment she claimed £2OOO damages. In September, when Dr. Mackenzieagain saw 'plaintiff he diagnosed correct-: ]y. When .plaintiff knew that she: bad ■ cancer - she delayed .a --month'-before nil--dergoing an' operation. Dr. Mackenzie, did everything an ordinary physician; would do. Ah error of judgment, counsel submitted, Was not negligence. Tho hearing was again adjourned.