DEATH UNDER CHLOROFORM

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13465, 18 April 1907, Page 6

DEATH UNDER CHLOROFORM

THE INQUEST

] A.v inquest concerning tho death while uiii'er chloroform of Mrs. Lucy Bevin, particulars of which were published in yesterday's Herald, was held by Mr. Tlios. j fJresham, Coroner, at Iho Windsor ('a?l!e | Hotel, Paruell. yesterday morning. Formal evidence of identification of the body was given by Elizabeth Russell, sister lof tho deceased. She said 'ho late Mrs. ! Bcvin, wife of Mr. George Bevin, bridge I contractor, of Raglan, came to Auckland I sonio four weeks ago, and though she had then just passed through an illness she whs able to get/ about., and apparently was quite well. Two weeks ago the deceased complained of feeling unwell, associating it «it!) her former trouble, and d. vided to consult a doctor, who, the witness learned from tho deceased later, advised an operation. Tho deceased, the ugh not caring tor chloroform, was not nervous about it, and was bright and cheerful. She, was a healthy woman, and always had a strong constitution. Elizabeth Lakey, certificated nurse, who was present, at the death, said that every precaution was taken prior to the administration of the ame.sthotic, tho influence of which had an immediate effect, on the patient, and Dr. I'ortei was on the point of commencing the operation when she collapsed. Unavailing efforts at artificial respiration were made. Replying to Sergeant Hendry (who represented the police) tho witness said that tho administration of the chloroform wis commenced and the patient was slightly under its infltteneu when tho necessity of ou enema in case of an emergency was mentioned, and the witness went to a, chemist (close by) for tho required article, tlrj aniesthetic being temporarily withdrawn The patient was in much the same condition semi-conscious—when the witness returned. She was away only about three minutes. An examination 0? the patient was not made in witness' pretence, but tho defeased told her she had bren examined tho day previous. It could not have been inuro than ten minutes between the ti nt of tho starting of the administration of the chloroform and the collapse. In answer to questions by Dr. Porte* witness said that- while sho was helping Dr. Porter' with the preparation of instruments in the diningroom Dr. Murphy was with the patient in tho bodroom, and had plenty of timo to make an examination of the patient. She did not know definitely if the anaesthetic was stopped while she was away at the chemist's, bub sho thought it was, localise the patient seemed to bo in the sam» condition. She had no recollection of a first alarm, then restoration, and tho operation being proceeded with, preceding tho final collapse. Dr. Porter in his evidence said Dr. Murphy told him while preparing for tho I operation that he had examined the patient's heart and it was perfectly sound. Dr. Murphy used extreme care in the administration I of the nines the tie. which was taken excepI tionally well by tho patient. There was no ! struggling, neither was there any temporary cessation of the administration. There wero symptoms of collapse after dilators from No. 7 to 1? had been passed, but animation was restored. After the recovery lie passed No. 13 dilator, and used another instrument when tho serious collapse occurred. Restorative measures were carried on for three-quarters of an hour without intermis-

sion, and everything possible was done. The

operation was a common one for repeated hemorrhage, and was not dangerous. (In the occasion of the primary collapse it was merely respiratory, the heart continuing to beat strongly. Dr. Hull, who conducted a post-mortem examination, said the heart was iimall but healthy. The lungs were strong, but showed signs of old pleurisy, and would he unduly hampered bv a strain on tho system. That weakness, however, could not have boon discovered by physical examination. In his opinion the right course iiiad been taken with the operation, and every step possible for resuscitation adopted. The cause of death was respiratory failure, due to the administration of chloroform, tho lungs being so much hampered, and indirectly the heart, that the chance of recovery after collapse was small. Nothing could have been foreseen, and no blame was attachable to the doctor administering the anaesthetic. A doctor would l>e justified in advising an operation, because tho danger was not apparent. The jury returned a verdict tha' tho "cause of death was failure of respiration, due to chloroform administration, accident ally and by misadventure."