"INFAMOUS CONDUCT."

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19086, 3 August 1925, Page 10

"INFAMOUS CONDUCT."

THE MACKENZIE APPEAL. (l . . . ' REASONS FOR DISMISSAL EXPLOITATION OF PATIENTS. [BI TELEGRAPH. —PBi:S3 ASSOCIATION. ] ■WELLINGTON, Batuxday. Tho written reasons for the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal of Henry Dundas Mackenzie, of Auckland, medical practitioner, against tike order made by Mr. Justide Herdman removing the appellant's name from ■ the Register of Medical Practitioners in New Zealand for infamous conduct in a professional respect because in his practice ho had used tho Abrams system of diagnosis and treatment of disease without having any honest belief in the sysitem, were delivered this morning. " The Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 1924, provides in section 6," said Mr. Justice Sim in his judgment, "that no medical practitioner shall be deemed guilty of grave impropriety or infamous conduct in a professional respect by reason 6nly of , his having adopted and practised any. theory of medicine or surgery, if in so doing he has acted honestly a>nd in good faith. Tho provision wa3 not. ia force during the period in question in this case, but it may be taken, as Mr, Myers, counsel for appellant, suggested, as being retrospectively tho proper construction of section 22 of the Act of 1914. "Tho question to be determined on the appeal was whether or not the decision of Mr. Justice Herdman was right. After hearing the ablo argument submitted by Mr. Myerr on behalf of the appellant the Court was of opinion that the decision was right. Mr. Myers complained that one of the grounds upon which the Judge condemned his client was that for the purposes of diagnosis McKenzie relied almost entirely upon the Abrams system and very rarely resorted to the ordinary clinical methods, but this does not hslp to prove that Mackenzie did not honestly believe in the Abrams oystem. On the contrary it goes to show his faith in it. Complete reliance on the system may be foolish* and reckless, but it is quite consistent with honesty and good faith and Mackenzie is to be condemned only if he acted without honesty or good faith. Another complaint made by Mr. Myers was that the Judge had based his decision to some extent on the report of the Horder Commission on tho Abrams system. Mr. Myers contended that it was not fair to judge his client's conduct during the years from 1921 to 1924 in the light of a report which was not published until 1925. Abrams Hot the Issue. " This contention,, said Mr. Justice Sim, appears to be well founded. The question of the value of the Abrams system was not directly in issue in the case. The only question was whether or not Mackenzie had acted honestly and in good faith in his use of that system. In arriving at a conclusion on this question, Mr. Justice Herdman appears to have taken the view that during the four years under consideration no practitioner "who acted honestly and in good faith would have relied entirely for his diagnosis on the Abrams system. That view was not justified, I think," by the evidence. " Mr. , Myers has succeeded, therefore, in establishing that in some respects the reasoning by which the Judge arrived at his conclusion is not entirely sound, but notwithstanding this, that conclusion appears to be justified by the evidence, and it is clear, I think, from the evidence, that although Mackenzie may have believed to some extent in the Abrams system he used it, not for the purpose of benefitting the unfortunate sufferers who came to him for relief, bat for tho purpose of .exploiting them to his own pecuniary advantage. Gullibility of Public. " The order fixes two years as the time after which Mackenzie may apply for reregistration. It is unfortunate, I think, that any period was fixed, for it seems undesirable that such a practitioner as Mackenzie, by obtaining registration again, should be enabled to prey on a gullible public." Mr. Justice Alpers examined a number of instances givnn before the Supreme Court and stated; that after eliminating from consideration every witness,,as to whose testimony he entertained the slightest doubt there remained enough ana more than enov'gh of unimpeachable probative value to convince him that the Judge had been amply justified in his conclusions. If he had tried the case he would have fixed, the period for re-regis-tration at ten yeaxs instead of two.