1821

MEDICINE AND THE LAW.

Liability for Infection with Puerperal Fever.IN the case of Heathcote v. Chadwick and others, recently

tried by Mr. Justice Pickford and a special jury, the plaintiffwas a widower who claimed compensation for the loss of hiswife by puerperal fever from the authorities of an institutionwhich had provided a nurse to attend her in her confine-ment. The nurse did not give the whole of her time to theplaintiff’s wife, but attended also another woman who un-doubtedly contracted puerperal fever. Upon this being dia-gnosed the nurse ceased to attend the deceased, but it was toolate to prevent her from being infected. The plaintiff allegednegligence on the part of the defendants in allowing thenurse to attend both women, and also that the nurse was

negligent, as she ought to have known even before the caseof the second one was diagnosed as puerperal fever that itwas dangerous for her to attend both women, and furtherthat the matron who sent her out was negligent in lettingher continue attending the deceased when she, the matron,knew that a rise of temperature had taken place in the otherpatient. Mr. Justice Pickford, in summing up, told the jurythat they had to decide from the evidence whether thedefendants agreed to nurse the plaintiff’s wife" or only’’ to supply a nurse to attend her." " In the former case thedefendants would be liable for any negligence of the nurse.In the latter case they would not be responsible for anynegligence of the nurse, but they might be liable for

negligence if the matron allowed the nurse to attend the

plaintiff’s wife when she should not have allowed her to doso. The jury found that the contract was to provide a nurse,but failed to agree as to whether there was any negligenceon the part of the nurse or of the matron.

Unqualified Dentists and Cocaine: A Jury’sRecommendation.

A case in which a married woman died a few minutesafter an injection of cocaine, given to her by an unqualifieddentist, was before Mr. H. C. Yates, the coroner for Cheshire,on June 6th. The unqualified dentist, Ernest Edwards, ofNantwich, admitted having injected a quantity of cocaineinto the woman’s gums. He said he had 32 years’ experienceof dental work, but had never had such a case before. In

summing up the coroner said he had searched but could notfind any statute prohibiting any person who was not aqualified medical man or dental practitioner from adminis-tering anaesthetics or any other drug. But if an un-

qualified person who administered it led the public tobelieve that he was a qualified man he was liable to a

penalty. He thought that in view of the fact that therewas so much of this injecting going on by unqualifiedpersons, the sooner something was done to prevent it thebetter it would be for the public. If the jury thought thatEdwards was guilty of gross or culpable negligence in theway he performed the operation it would be their duty toput him upon trial for manslaughter, but it must be provedthat the anaesthetic was the direct cause of death, and thatit was not due to any contributory cause. He was bound to isay in this case, although he did so with considerablereluctance, that he did not think there was sufficient evi-dence to place Edwards on his trial. The jury returned averdict that death was due to misadventure, but added arecommendation that the law should be so amended as to ]prohibit the use of anaesthetics except by fully qualified practitioners. The coroner said he cordially agreed with 1the recommendation and would communicate it to the HomeOffice.

An Interesting Case for Compensation. 1During the hearing of a compensation case at the Salford

county court on June 9th Judge Mellor had before him a icase for approval of a settlement of a compensation claim tmade by H. Clarke, aged 21, for loss of the sight of his left e

eye, caused through the bursting of a bottle in September r

last. It was stated that the medical opinion was to the feffect that the young man could now return to work, and s

that he had agreed to accept £80 and costs in commutation s

of any liabilities that might arise in the future. The judgeremarked that the " workman " in this case was practically B

only a b)y. For such an accident as this he certainly should Cnot allow him to settle for less than 80, in addition to the t

cost of having an artificial eye put in. Continuing, the judge*said, ’’ I have now been here sufficiently long to have a tabu-lated idea as to the value of every limb and every part of a-man’s frame." Before he consented to settlement he shouldat least insist on being assured by medical evidence thatfuture removal of the injured eye could not affect the re-maining one. The case was adjourned for medical evidence-to be called.

RESEARCH DEFENCE SOCIETY.

THE annual meeting of the Research Defence Society washeld at the Royal College of Physicians of London on;

June 24th, when Sir DAVID GILL presided.The Right Rev. Bishop FRODSHAM said that the society

had fully justified its existence, and had done a great dealto create a healthy public opinion with regard to a subjectwhich had been much misrepresented. Scientific researchwas shown not to be contrary to the principles of

Christianity.Mr. SYDNEY HOLLAND, in moving the adoption of the-

report of the committee, which stated that the society wassteadily gaining recognition and exercising more influence-over public opinion, having during the year recruited more-than 400 members and associates, referred to the decision ofthe committee to open a number of shops to counteract theinfluence of the Antivivisection Society, and remarked thatthat was one of the best possible ways of promoting thercause of true science and true humanity. Referring to theBills for the protection of dogs which were at present beforeParliament, one of which had already passed a second

reading, he showed that the animals themselves hadbenefited by research, instancing, among other thingsrinoculation for distemper.The motion was seconded by Sir HuGg BELL and adopted.The Treasurer’s report, which was submitted by Dr. F. M.

SANDWITH, stated that last year the subscriptions receivedby the parent society showed an excess of R113, while the-contributions from branches were also £100 in excess of the-previous year. On the present occasion, the report pointed)out, the subscriptions to the parent society show a diminu-tion of £106, while the contributions from the branches onlyslightly exceed the amount paid during 1911. This is pre-sumably not due to any loss of interest in the society, butrather to the fact that many supporters consider it un-

necessary to continue their subscriptions after the issue ofthe report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection.

Sir DAVID GILL in his presidential address, after referring-to the need for the existence of the Research Defence Societyin protecting science from the disastrous effects whichwould follow the kind of legislation which certain peoplewere advocating, said that in order to combat the misleadingstatements of their opponents it was proposed to open a shopin London where the truth about the Research Society couldbe put before the public day by day, and for this purpose.6600 were required, of which E340 had already been received.He urged the public before joining any of the antivivisection.societies to read the final portion of the report of the RoyalCommission which was published last year.Lord CROMER, referring to the non-election of Lord!

Cheylesmore to the council of the Royal Society for thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals, said he had instituted aprotest as he believed the result was due to a snap vote. IfLord Cheylesmore was not replaced on the council of therRoyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals he-himself would withdraw from the society and he hopedothers would do the same.

Sir THOMAS BARLOW, President of the Royal College ofPhysicians of London, explained that the College wasgrateful to the Research Defence Society for the work whichit had done in defending men who could not well defendthemselves from serious misrepresentation. All who wereengaged in the practice of medicine and surgery who werenot themselves able to carry on the experiments necessaryfor the advance of science and the amelioration of human

suffering acknowledged the courage, energy, and spirit of thesociety.A vote of thanks to the President was proposed by Mr.

WALDORF ASTOR, and in acknowledging the vote Sir DAVIDGILL thanked Sir Thomas Barlow for the use of the library ofthe Royal College of Physicians of London for the meeting.