THE AUCKLAND HOSPITAL INQUIRY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13206, 13 February 1905, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE AUCKLAND HOSPITAL INQUIRY.

CHARGE AGAINST DR COLLINS

AUCKLAND, February 6. The charge of manslaughter against Dr J. C. Collins, senior medical officer of Auckland Hospital, in connection with tha operation performed upon Wallis White at tho hospital on May 18 last, and upon which accused was committed for trial, was referred to at some length by Mr Justice Edwards in his charge* to the Grand Jury. His Honor said Dr Collins was charged with causing the death of a man named Wallis Whito by performing an unskilful operation. Tho law on tho subject protected anyouo from criminal responsibility who performed a surgical operation, provided it waa done with rcasona.blo care and ■skill. Having regard to tho patient's condition at the time, and all the circumstances of the case, what was suggested was that Dr Collins did moro than was necessary. Every person (continued, his Honor) who performed an oporation was required to bo possessed of reasonable skill, but he was not bound to havo the skill of a firstclass London specialist. If every surgeon was required to cxerciso skill as great as that of the foremost surgeon of tho day his life would become intolerable, and ha would bo unable to livo. At tho same time, ho was required to oxoroiso reasonable caro and skill. Tho first question to be considered was, Did Dr Collins excrciso' reasonable caro and skill? If they thought that he did not, then a bill should bo returned against him. It must be cigar, to justify flic' charge, (1) that reasonable care and skill was not exercised, and (2) that lack of reasonable care and skill caused or accelerated death. There was no suggestion, so far ns ho knew, that what was done caused the man's death, but .it was suggested that it accelerated death. It wm for them to say whether there was any' evidence that it did. So far as tho depositions went, ,thore was no ovidenoe that it accelerated the man's death. If lie had been a magistrate probably he would not havo committed Dr Collins. He had carefully examined the evidence of Drs Neill, Savage, Gore, Gillon, I'nrcliasc, Bull, and as given in tho lower court, and it appeared' that tho utmost that any one of them could say was that what was done "may" havo accelerated tho man's death. There was, it appeared, but small chance of life in any case. So far as he could see, no 'witness would say positively that tlie operation either caused or accelerated death. If it was clear that thoro was not evidence that the operation caused or accelerated death, they, should throw out the bill. They had all hoard a . great deal, and many thought it was correct, to the effect that surgeons were much too prone to look into people's bodies to see what they could find there. If this, wore so, it was quits desirable fhot it should bo checked. • But it was no justification for finding a man guilty of manslaughter - without any evidence that prying into the man's body did cause'"or accclerato death. If they foundthat thore was any evidence upon which 1?. reasonable men could be expected to find that Dr Collins did oatiso or accelerate the death of Wallis White, they must return a truo bill, although the petty jury might still acquit him. But to do so they must be satisfied that there wa3 ovidence of acceleration of death. * At a quarter to 6 p.m. the foreman of tho Grand Jury (Mr Hart Kent), accompanied by several other members of the , jury, came into court, and stated that thejr. were Unable to come to a unanimous decision in tho caso against Dr Collins. He asked whether the finding of a majority would be accepted, and what majority was required. 1 His Honor said he believed a bare majority would suffice* As.' however, the question had never cropped up . before ho had to cdrisult the act, and this showed that a bare majority would bo sufficient. The Grand Jury, 'after retiring for a further two or' three minutes, 'returned with the finding of "No-bill "in regard to the case. The majority was not announced, but it is understood that the bill was thrown out bv 17 to 3. .