THE DEATH OF HENRY WHITE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11689, 26 June 1901, Page 7

THE DEATH OF HENRY WHITE.

TO THE EDITOR. i Sir,--I read the account of Henry White's death in the Herald with much interest. Aot that 1 was acquainted with the deceased, for I never saw him, but because lie died under chloroform, and such deaths have a peculiar interest for me, believing, as I do, that in the vast majority of cases they are clue to the maladministration of the drug. It appears from the report of the White case in your columns that Dr. Woodward was administering the anaesthetic, and, "after struggling violently for a little time. White dropped back dead." At the inquest Dr. Lowe, who made the post-mortem, declared that all the organ?, and also the brain, wero in a perfectly healthy state, and that there was no appearance of death from chloroform asphyxia. "He would attribute death to paralysis of the heart, probably induced by deceased's struggles whilst taking the chloroform." The jury found a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence, and that "no blame attached to anyone." But why did the deceased struggle violently while faking the chloroform? Why do we invariably read in these cases that the deceased struggled? If chloroform is administered by "the open method," i.e., is poured on to a towel, and the towel is held at a proper distance from the person it is desired to "put under," the operation is attended with no unpleasant consequences whatever. The patient gradually sinks into unconsciousness, the sensation being described by those who have experienced it ast most soothing and agreeable. But when the chloroform is administered by means of an inhaler (a bag-like receptacle which is fitted over tho mouth and nostrils), or is poured into a hollow pad, which latter is strapped over the nose and mouth, the fumes of the drug produce a choking, stifling sensation, which causes the patient to gasp for air. Hence the struggling. Writing on April 23, 1698, to the British Medical Journal, Dr. Waller, lecturer on physiology, and a man of considerable eminence, plainly expressed his conviction that "death under chloroform is nearly always due to unskilful administration." Dr. Buxton, whose name is also of wide celebrity, declared in the Nineteenth Century, a year or two ago, that in his opinion students should be required to hold a. special certificate of having been taught how to give chloroform before they qualify as medical men. This authority pointed out, in the same article, that it did not follow because a man happened to bo a doctor that he was therefore necessarily qualified to give chloroform: on the contrary, he might, in other respects, be a most able practitioner. and yet be wholly incompetent to administer chloroform. Surely, if men such as Waller and Buxton hold these opinions, it should be made illegal for anyone, whether a doctor or not, to administer chloroform unless specially trained for the work. Also, it should lie made a criminal offence for anybody to administer chloroform in any way but by the "open" method. And tho distance at which the person administering the drug shall stand from the patients might most properly be regulated by law. The terrible frequency of deaths under chloroform in the hospital? of this colony is exciting a very general feeling of uneasiness in the public mind, and this feeling is not to be allayed by anv number of findings by coroners' juries that "no blame attaches to anybody." — T am, etc.. Rx-AtjCEIANDEH. Christchurch, June 21, 1901.