CURES BY MACHINERY

Southland Times, Issue 19502, 17 March 1925, Page 8

CURES BY MACHINERY

THE MACKENZIE CASE DEFENDANT CROSS-EXAMINED SOME IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, March 16. The sixth day of the hearing of the application by the Medical Board to have the. name of Henry Dundas MacKenzie struck off the roll was reached to-day. MacKenzie, who began his evidence on Thursday, was under further cross-examina-tion by Mr Meredith. In reply to a question by Mr Meredith, MacKenzie said that he had a notice in his surgery: “No cures guaranteed.” He thought it was put up in July, 1922, under instructions from San Francisco, owing to the possibility of actions at law. This was due to methods of the American Medical Association, but apparently it was of no use in Court. Witness remembered receiving the blood samples from Dr. .Todd and Mr “F.” and he had tested the blood received through the post on two or three occasions. Witness remembered the first occasion on which “F.” sent him some and he threw it in a waste paper basket following on the instructions of his solicitor. He was afraid it might be a trap. Witness would not trust the blood, so he tested the handwriting as the same results could be obtained from handwriting as from blood. The results would have been the same had the blood been genuine. Witness had no reason to test the blood as he had no suspicions that “F.” was a fraud. A diagnosis was made on the handwriting and a reply written by witness. He did not know about the mistake in the sex, but he knew his letter was sent to Mrs “F.” There was no question of testing for sex, as that test could be made on a machine. As far as witness knew, the mistake with the address was a clerk’s. Dr. Pettit had made the same diagnosis on a letter.

DANGEROUS CONDITION. In the test made there were just over seven ohms of carcinosis, and five to eight was a dangerous condition. Witness thought it would be difficult to find a book showing the danger zone as having been altered from between five and eight. The delicacy of these tests had been altered, but no danger zone that was looked on as 5.2, would be looked on as seven or eight to-day. The danger was different for individuals. It was just the same as a man drinking whisky; one drink would affect one man, while 10 might not affect another. It was a question of resistance. The letter sent by witness was meant to indicate that the sooner he came for treatment the less he would require. .“Wasn’t it a direct attempt to frighten the man into coming to you hot foot?” “No.” The third sample of blood from “F.” was put in the waste paper basket. In the same way he had five opportunities of checking first diagnoses and did not take advantage of one of them. Witness did not think it made any difference whether he told “F.” he was not testing the blood. The Judge said that he wanted the position cleared up.

Witness stated in reply to his Honour’s questions, that he tested “Fs.” sample of handwriting and three letters were received from “F ”, a sample of blood being enclosed in each.

His Honour: Dr. MacKenzie, if I, as a medical man, were to tell you that your condition was such that you might be in Waikumete within a week, would that be likely to please or displease you? Witness: In my present condition, I don’t know whether it would please me or not, your Honour. It would only make me set my house in order, Sir, that is all. (Laughter). LIFE NOT WORTH LIVING.

Justice Herdman: I see. Then life is not worth much.

Witness: At best the life is a short and passing one, and one can only do his best. (Laughter). His Honour: You seem to be content anyway.

His Honour continued: In the last letter from “F.” dated December 14, 1923, that gentleman asked: ‘Does the blood test indicate any improvement?” and he was referring to the blood sample sent with that letter. Dr MacKenzie: Yes.

Proceeding, his Honour said that in his answer, MacKenzie stated that “by continuing your present line of action the time is fast approaching when the treatment will be useless. You are steadily becoming worse and medicine will not help you.”

What possible justification did you have for making that statement, when you had only tested one sample of handwriting?

Dr. MacKenzie: The condition from that test was progressive and was dangerously progressive. His Honour: How did you know it had progressed ? Look here, Dr. MacKenzie, this man sent you a sample for testing and he sent you letters, and to the third letter you tell him that he is steadily becoming worse. What did you base it on ? Dr. MacKenzie: On the chemical history of hundreds of cases.

This concluded MacKenzie’s evidence and the case was adjourned till to-morrow