DOCTORS FACE BOMBARDMENT

NZ Truth, Issue 1168, 19 April 1928, Page 3

DOCTORS FACE BOMBARDMENT

Distraught Parents' Verbal Fusillade At Inquest On Infant Son STORY OF DRAMATICJNTERVIEW IN HOSPITAL (From "N.Z. Truth's" Hawera Representative. The death of an infant boy m the Hawera hospital, after a lingering semiconsciousness of twelve days, was made the subject of a sharp attack on the house surgeon by the father of the boy.

■ r PHB inquest concerned the death of I Phillip Ronald Nicholson, a child of sixteen months, who was admitted to the hospital after being kicked by a horse on the farm of his father, Frederick Thornhill Nicholson, of Normanby. When admitted on March 18, he was semi-conscious, remaining thus until March 31, when an operation -was performed. . The child died at 12.30 a,m. on April 1. It was after Dr. McGhie, honorary surgeon of the children's ward, and young Dr. Noel Thorpe Marams, the house surgeon, had given their evidence and left the court, that the father made some sweeping assertions. "I must say I think my child didn't get Its fair dues when it first was admitted to the hospital!" declared the passionate voice of a broken-hearted father. Coroner R. S. Sage: "Why didn't you say that when the doctors were here? t asked if there were any more questions to be asked and gave you the opportunity." "I did not know I was included m the question," said the father. "I thought you were addressing- the jury ... I told the doctors I wouia be wanting explanations . . . "Dr. McGhie apologised to me at the bedside for not doing what he should have done. I agreed he did all he could have done, but after it was too late. It was too late when they operated!" "You are raising serious questions as to professional conduct," the coroner warned Nicholson.

Brain Lacerated

"Yes, I know that," replied the father. "Marams was the man I saw and who handled the case and who would . . ." "It may be necessary to call Dr. Cairney," said Coroner Sage. "He's the superintendent of the hospital and. responsible for its conduct." It was decided at this stage to adjourn the inquest while the actingcoroner conferred with Magistrate J. S. Barton and while Dr. McGhie, honorary surgeon, and Dr. Marams, house surgeon, were recalled. Upon resumption the coroner observed: "The position, I take it, is this. Mr. Nicholson has made certain state- [ ments. He must not make those stateiments, but must give his evidence as to facts . . ." Addressing the parents: "It is your i privilege to ask the doctors any questions you wish. So complete your evidence." When first called, Dr. McGhie stated that the cause of death, m his opinion, was shock and exhaustion, following severe laceration of the brain with a compound fracture of the skull consequent upon an injury consistent with a kick from a horse. He had attended the child m hospital on March IS. Everything possible had been done to save the child's life !and although he considered the case practically hopeless, there was a small ray of hope with an operation which had been performed at 6.30 p.m. on March 31. The witness found — as he had at first suspected — severe laceration of the brain. In all fractures of the skull, the fracture depended not so much on the skull's condition as that of the brain underneath, which was not apparent until some time after the accident. The child's temperature had risen to 104 on the same day, a condition usually accepted as evidence of a

damaged brain and usually held to prove fatal. The child died at 12.30 a.m. the next day. Dr. Marams had said on the first occasion that he attended the child who was m a semi-conscious condition, when admitted to the hospital. Dr. McGhie, recalled, was asked the following questions by the jury and the child's parents. In your opinion, would it have been advisable to have operated sooner, instead of waiting eleven days? — No! Definitely No! There were no indications of an operation. Do you think deceased received the treatment he should have had when admitted? — Absolutely. Nicholson: "Do you remember the day when we were at the bedside with my wife . . .?"

"Put your remarks m question form!" directed the coroner. Why didn't you come to the hospital yourself personally and see the child? — Because the child was not admitted regularly. Mr. Nicholson 'phoned Dr. Thomson to meet him at the hospital, where, on arrival, Mr. Nicholson demanded that Dr. Thomson be allowed to treat the case. . . . "It was explained to him that Dr. Thomson was not a member of the honorary staff of the hospital and consequently his services could only be claimed m the private hospital. "Mr. Nicholson became abusive — of course, that's not of my own knowledge." Dr. McGhie also indicated that it was left to the. two doctors at the hospital to tell the honorary surgeons Avhether a case was urgent or not. He came immediately on being called to an urgent case. "Am I on my defence or may I come back for libel?" asked Dr. McGhie when the parents made certain allegations.

"You're here to give evidence as to the cause of death," he was told. "I take it the case is being reported and it is most unfortunate that we were not here when the other statements were made . . . "The jury should know the whole history of the case and I am quite willing to answer any questions a.6 to treatment." Mrs. Nicholson: Do you think the child could have been saved if the wound had not gone septic? — No, it is impossible to guarantee that any wound will not be without infection, especially where you have damaged tissues. "The fact that the child did not develop infection of the brain for 13 days is an indication that the wound must have been dealt with very efficiently to begin with," the doctor added. Mrs. Nicholson: Was the child given an anaesthetic to be treated m the first place? — No. What was your reason for not doing so or not, instructing the house surgeon to do so? — Because I did not think it necessary. Do you consider that the wound could be cleaned sufficiently and efficiently without an anaesthetic m the time this youngr man — indicating Dr. Marams — took to do it? — I do not know how long it took. Why did you apologise to me at the child's bedside that you had not attended the child m the first place? — I did not apologise for that reason, but — hearing Nicholson's side of the story — apologised because he had experienced so much difficulty

Doctor's Denial

m getting the child admitted to the hospital. This finished Dr. McGhie's evidence, the parents mentioning that they were satisfied with his treatment. "Why did you tell me that the injury to the child's head was "a mere cut" and was 'nothing'?" demanded the parent sternly of Dr. Marams. "When I made that statement I had not had time to fully examine the child." On further examination a fracture was revealed, of which witness informed Nicholson. Why, when I asked you if there were any broken bones, did you say there was none? — I did not say there were no. broken bones. After first examining the child, I told Nicholson that until I had examined the wound thoroughly I could not say whether there was a fracture or not. Do you remember, when I was ringing' Dr. Thomson, your answering that there were no broken bones? — My answer is the same as to the previous question. "Why did you say: 'You birds come m here and expect first-class treatment for a second-class price?"' "Have I no redress for such libel?" appealed Dr. Marams to the coroner. Nicholson: "That's not libel!" The doctor (heatedly): "Excuse me, Mr. Nicholson, it is libel!" Was there any other doctor m the hospital when you attended to the child?—^Yes, Dr. Cairney, the medical superintendent, was available. He was at his house when I attended to the child. Dr. Cairney arrived just as the parents were leaving the hospital. Without retiring, the jury found that the, child "met his death from injuries received by being kicked accidentally by a horse on March 18."