ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 18 August 1924, Page 2

ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE

QLAIM AGAINST A DOCTOR

DULL AMOUNT AWARDED

* United Pre«s AHBociatioc.) AUCKLAND, Aug. is The case in winch .Mrs Lawrence, ol Hamilton, claims ‘a&OOu damages for alleged negligent, treatment, by Dr I fundus Mackenzie, was continued. The defendant, Henry Dundas Mackenzie. said he had been practising nieuicine for 28 years. In addition to ordinarv jii'actice'hc used the Abrams method of diagnosis and treatment. When the plaintiff and her husband came to hint m August, 1922. the husband said doctors had advised _an operation, but hia wife refit’s.-“d to have it done. He examined her by Ordinary clinical methods, [

which he checked bv Abrams method, j The condition of Mrs Lawrence was a common one, and he told her his opinion was 1 hat it was a ease of mastitis and not. cancer. She asked if he could cure her, and he said there was reasonable hope of > the breast responding to treatment "without an operation. In the opinion of the defendant. only 4 ot o per cent of cases Of globular, masu-xs turned to cancer. He put Mrs Lawrence

under Abrams' treatment, and that was what she came for. lhe defendant said he had successfully treated many cases of breast trouble by the Abrams method. He did not" believe in an operation for mastitis to he of any use at all for the eradication of cancer. The operation

would have to be very extensive and \erv serious, and he would not advise an operation except in malignant cases. After five weeks’ treatment Mrs Lawi cnee left without consulting him about going awnv. She had further treamont from 12th October to 27th October,.and the next year she had seven days' treat merit, in March. When she left him on Cth September 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 March of the following year. He had not told her she was cured. He saw her later, in September

1923,.when a diagnosis showed "carcinoma of breast, 10 ohms,” and he advised the removal of the breast. The plaintll told him she had bruised her breast, lhe first indication he received of being accused of negligence was when he receiv-

ed a letter from Mrs Lawrence’s solicitors. In Sentember 1923, the defendant said he had’advised an operation, and her delay in waiting for another month mav have been fatal. . When he advised her' to go into hospital in Auckland was with the idea of getting a surgeon

to operate.. He did not propose to operate himself. The defendant said he had worked with .Dr Abrams for three months. Ho was with him in 1920, and he went back in 1922. . Abrams 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. He denied having told Airs Lawrence, when she complained of much pain, that “the.germs wero dying hard, ' or that lie told her she need never see any more doctors. He also denied In told her she. could go home and return for. further, treatment after he came back from America. He did riot tell Airs Lawrence she ‘Was cured. Defendant denied Sic told Mrs Lawrence he could cure her "without punching holes in her.” He alSo denied having told the plajntif she would be a surprise for the Hamilton

doctors, as he had cured her without operation, or that on ?3rd September he told her how long she was or was not going- to live. ■ Air Strang, for plaintiff: ‘You do claim a more scientifically accurate diagnosis by Abrams’ method than by 'ordinary clinical methods?” —“1 do think we can get a better proportion of accurate diagnosis.” . The defendant was cross-examined as lo results of blood test. Asked: “How did the breast compare in March 1923. as with August, 1922?” the defendant hesitated in his answer, and. his Honour asked him whether he did not keep records of. his cases? Ho said he did not.'

Ilis Honour: '.‘Then you are depend ing entirely on memory - !”'— "Yes.” "You had a great many patients hadn’t you - '”—“Not SO' many as 1 did. now that .I am being persecuted by the British Medical Association.” "But- have you no records?' -—“Mv nurse keeps records. ’ “Then have you one of Mrs Lawrence? ’—"No. it. is too old .1 do not keep records over twelve months. Mr Strang: “You got a letter from me in November. 1923, threatening ac tion. Did you not keep Mrs Lawrence's record then?—“No ” “You knew they would be wanted. “No, mv vear ends on. Ist November.

“Oh, *1 "was just- seven -days too late with mv letter. That’s a pity. Mr Strang asked the defendant re garding the case of Mrs. (since deceased of cancer) : "Did you cure her.' he. demanded. —“No, and I did not promise it,” . ‘/Didn’t.you tell her husband you had removed all cancer out of .her, body i "No.”

"Mrs. ; is dead?”—“Yes.” "You didn't cure her?” —“No, What did do to Mir. was to save her an enormous amount'of suffering, Questioned as to liis qualifications, the defendant said he was a graduate of the Homeopathic Medical College, .Missouri, Gnited"States of America, and commenced practice in Now Zealand in 189 b. Mr Strang: “Is, that college still in existence.?”—‘H cannot tell you. ’ „ “1 suggest it went right out in labo. —“I do not. know.” The defendant said he had taken a full six monills’ course in biology ni Dunedin in 1892. The. defendant said lie was the only’ autohaemic.surgeon left in New Zealand ; tic others bad died, or had left the country, lie had also trained under Pratt/ of Chicago, in orificial surgery. He had practised that on_ sonic patients, not many'. The object of this was to free nerves that were pinched, and causing a drain on the system. William Haddow Pettit, - , medical practitioner, who had himself, been healed t>y Abrams’ system, said lie practised and considered the method suitable as an adjunct to other treatment. James Dalzioll, who dcsenlxid himsefl as a medical practitioner oh Pukekohe, hilt not, now on the rolls, said Mrs Lawrence told him she had _ received a blow on her "breast since being treated by the defendant, Mrs Lawrence (recalled denied telling Dal/it-11 she received a blow or bruise, and she did not receive anyAUCKLAND, Aug. 1/ In the ease of Mrs Lawrence of Hamilton against Doctor Dundas Mackenzie, claiming £2OOO damages for alleged negligent treatment the- jury returned a verdict for the full amount .claimed.