CLAIM FOR £2OOO DAMAGES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19251, 15 August 1924, Page 6

CLAIM FOR £2OOO DAMAGES.

ALLEGED NEGLIGENT TREATMENT. PATIENT SUES DOCTOR. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, August 11. In the claim by Marjory Mary Ann Lawrence against Dr Pundas Mackenzie for £2OOO damages for alleged negligent treatment, Dr Bruce Mackenzie stated in evidence that he visited the defendant in response to a general invitation to investigate the Abrams machine. Defendant promised to make some tests of blood submitted by witness, but after much delay defendant refused to carry out his promise, giving the reason that witness was not an honest investigator. Witness said the principle of the machine was that every disease had its special rate of radioactivity, and the claim was that application at this rate would cure the disease. Other claims were made, such as that it could tell religion sex, age, and paternity. He classed some of the claims as ridiculous nonsense. He arrived at the conclusion that so far as the method was said to rest upon a recognised scientific basis, it was an absolute fraud, and hopeless.

Edwin Francis Lawrence, husband of plaintiff, said that his wife did not want to undergo an operation if she could avoid it, but she had never refused an operation. Witness, at the outset, did not tell defendant that Dr Joseph had said that the trouble might turn to cancer, but did so later. Defendant then said that plaintiff had no cancer whatever.

Dr Hugh Douglas, surgeon, of Hamilton, said that he had been practising for 28 years, and that a great many cancer cases had passed through his hands. He diagnosed cancer in the case of Mrs Lawrence. In October, 1923, she was suffering from advanced cancer of the breast, and he advised an immediate operation. He judged that the disease had been present for at least six months. It might have existed for 12 months or even longer. It was a matter of common medical knowledge that cancer frequently supervened on chronic inflammation of the breasts, especially in elderly women. If witness found that chronic inflammation of the breast did not respond to medical treatment in three months at the outside he would resort to surgery. If after six weeks the breast became worse he would operate, and if he were not a surgeon he would advise an operation. A medical man would not do bis duty if he did not take this course.

Dr Kenneth Mackenzie, surgeon, said that where cancer was confined to the breast an operation would result in a cure in about 60 per cent, of the cases. He supported this view by quoting from the papers of the Mayo clinic of 1922, that if all the cases of cancer of the breast could he recognised early 75 to 80 per cent, could be permanently cured. In modern times an operation was practically safe. The mortality was not above 1 to 3 per cent. Plaintiff stated that when she first saw defendant he took a sample of the blood from her ear and placed it on blotting paper. After examining the blood he said: “You are a lucky woman,” adding there was no cancer and no need to punch holes in her. Defendant stated that he could cure her without an operation with four or five weeks’ treatment. This treatment consisted of chairs with plates with wires attached placed upon different parts of the body. After a time she told defendant that she still had pains, and when asked if she was being cured he said “Yes.” On one occasion he said that the pains were caused by the germs dying hard. After five weeks’ treatment defendant told her that the trouble was cleared up. The swelling in her breast had then increased, and she was suffering continuous pain. Subsequently she had three weeks’ more treatment without relief from the pain. She saw defendant four months later, having had no relief meanwhile. He advised further treatment, which she underwent. After another examination defendant said that there was nothing to worry about, adding that fhe swelling might take weeks or months to disappear. Later, she wrote to defendant stating that she felt better in general health, but she still worried about her breast. Defendant suggested seeing him again. , She did so, and defendant took another blood test. Then he asked her what she had been doing to “get her trouble.” Plaintiff replied; “What trouble?” Defendant said, “Need you ask?” and then said that she had cancer in the breast. Ho advised her to have an immediate operation. Plaintiff said to defendant, “What do you moan by saying I, have cancer in my breast? When I came to you months ago you said I had not got cancer?” Defendant replied, “Well, vou have got it now,” and advised her to have' her breast off. He said that she might live 12 months or two years. Witness said, “If lam a doomed woman I’ll die with my breasts on.” She attended the Hickson Mission at Hamilton without any result, and she then underwent an operation by Dr Joseph. She paid defendant about £4O. Asked whv she had delayed the operation so long witness said that defendant had stated that it would probably take months to effect a cure. At this stage Mr Johnstone (for defendant) submitted that there was no evidence to go before the jury on the alternative cause of the action.

His Honor: I don’t think there is. It is a case of negligence or no negligence. Mr Dickson, in opening the_ case for defendant, said that tho allegation was a simple one. Had defendant _ been guilty of negligence in performing his duty as a physician ? Defendant had used two methods of diagnosis, the ordinary clinic method of the physician and as an adjunct the Abrams system of diagnosis. Dr Mackenzie was not a member of the»B,M.A. He was, however, a doctor born in New Zealand, and had practised medicine for 90 to 30 years with vast experience, and bad an unblemished record. When plaintiff was advised in Hamilton she went to defendant. She did not want an operation and she had heard how Dr Mackenzie had effected cures by the Abrams method. When Dr Mackenzie saw plaintiff in August, 1922, his diagnosis of chronic mastitis’ was correct. He treated her for s „,. en days in March. Plaintiff then left nnd did not return so defendant had no <’bance of observing her condition Between March 1923. and August or September. 1923, plaintiff had developed cancer, and because she developed coneer when not receiving defendant’s treatment, she claimed 05000 damages. In September, when Dr Mackenzie again saw plaintiff he diagnosed correctly When plaintiff knew she had rencer she delayed a month before undoruoing an operation. Dr Mackenzie did everything an ordinary physician would do. \n error of iudgment, counsel submitted, was not negligence.