- Email: [email protected]
RESEARCH DEFENCE SOCIETY.
1821 cost of
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 plaintiff was a widower who claimed compensation for the loss of his wife by puerperal fever from the authorities of an institution which had provided a nurse to attend her in her confineThe nurse did not give the whole of her time to the ment. plaintiff’s wife, but attended also another woman who undoubtedly contracted puerperal fever. Upon this being diagnosed the nurse ceased to attend the deceased, but it was too late to prevent her from being infected. The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the defendants in allowing the nurse to attend both women, and also that the nurse was negligent, as she ought to have known even before the case of the second one was diagnosed as puerperal fever that it was dangerous for her to attend both women, and further that the matron who sent her out was negligent in letting her continue attending the deceased when she, the matron, knew that a rise of temperature had taken place in the other patient. Mr. Justice Pickford, in summing up, told the jury that they had to decide from the evidence whether the defendants agreedto nurse the plaintiff’s wife"or only " ’’ to supply a nurse to attend her." In the former case the defendants would be liable for any negligence of the nurse. In the latter case they would not be responsible for any negligence 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 do so. The jury found that the contract was to provide a nurse, but failed to agree as to whether there was any negligence on the part of the nurse or of the matron.
an artificial eye put in. Continuing, the judge* I have now been here sufficiently long to have a tabulated idea as to the value of every limb and every part of aman’s frame." Before he consented to settlement he should at least insist on being assured by medical evidence that future removal of the injured eye could not affect the remaining one. The case was adjourned for medical evidenceto be called.
said,
having
’’
RESEARCH DEFENCE SOCIETY. THE annual meeting of the Research Defence Society was held 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 deal to create a healthy public opinion with regard to a subject which had been much misrepresented. Scientific research was shown not to be contrary to the principles of
Christianity. Mr. SYDNEY HOLLAND, in moving the adoption of thereport of the committee, which stated that the society was steadily gaining recognition and exercising more influenceover public opinion, having during the year recruited morethan 400 members and associates, referred to the decision of the committee to open a number of shops to counteract the influence of the Antivivisection Society, and remarked that that was one of the best possible ways of promoting ther cause of true science and true humanity. Referring to the Bills for the protection of dogs which were at present before Parliament, one of which had already passed a second reading, he showed that the animals themselves had benefited by research, instancing, among other thingsr inoculation 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 received by the parent society showed an excess of R113, while the-
Dentists and Cocaine: A Jury’s Recommendation. A case in which a married woman died a few minutes after an injection of cocaine, given to her by an unqualified contributions from branches were also £100 in excess of thedentist, was before Mr. H. C. Yates, the coroner for Cheshire, previous year. On the present occasion, the report pointed) The unqualified dentist, Ernest Edwards, of on June 6th. out, the subscriptions to the parent society show a diminuNantwich, admitted having injected a quantity of cocaine tion of £106, while the contributions from the branches only into the woman’s gums. He said he had 32 years’ experience exceed the amount paid during 1911. This is preof dental work, but had never had such a case before. In slightly not due to loss of interest in the society, but sumably any summing up the coroner said he had searched but could not rather to the fact that many supporters consider it unfind any statute prohibiting any person who was not a necessary to continue their subscriptions after the issue of qualified medical man or dental practitioner from adminis- the report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection. unor other But if an any drug. tering anaesthetics Sir DAVID GILL in his presidential address, after referringqualified person who administered it led the public to to the need for the existence of the Research Defence Society believe that he was a qualified man he was liable to a in protecting science from the disastrous effects which penalty. He thought that in view of the fact that there would follow the kind of legislation which certain people was so much of this injecting going on by unqualified were advocating, said that in order to combat the misleading persons, the sooner something was done to prevent it the statements of their opponents it was proposed to open a shop better it would be for the public. If thejury thought that in London where the truth about the Research Society could in the be Edwards was guilty of gross or culpable put before the public day by day, and for this purpose he the it would be their to way operation duty performed .6600 were required, of which E340 had already been received. put him upon trial for manslaughter, but it must be proved He urged the public before joining any of the antivivisection. that the anaesthetic was the direct cause of death, and thatsocieties to read the final portion of the report of the Royal it was not due to any contributory cause. He was bound toi which was published last year. Commission in this so he did with considerable Lord CROMER, case, although say referring to the non-election of Lord! reluctance, that he did not think there was sufficient evi-Cheylesmore to the council of the Royal Society for the dence to place Edwards on his trial. The jury returned a Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said he had instituted a verdict that death was due to misadventure, but added a protest as he believed the result was due to a snap vote. If recommendation that the law should be so amended as to Lord ] Cheylesmore was not replaced on the council of ther prohibit the use of anaesthetics except by fully qualified Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals hepractitioners. The coroner said he cordially agreed withhimself 1 would withdraw from the society and he hoped the recommendation and would communicate it to the Homeothers would do the same. Office. Sir THOMAS BARLOW, President of the Royal College of An Interesting Case for Compensation. 1Physicians of London, explained that the College was During the hearing of a compensation case at the Salfordgrateful to the Research Defence Society for the work which i had done in defending men who could not well defend county court on June 9th Judge Mellor had before him a it case for approval of a settlement of a compensation claim tthemselves from serious misrepresentation. All who were made by H. Clarke, aged 21, for loss of the sight of his left eengaged in the practice of medicine and surgery who were eye, caused through the bursting of a bottle in September rnot themselves able to carry on the experiments necessary last. It was stated that the medical opinion was to the for f the advance of science and the amelioration of human effect that the young man could now return to work, and suffering s acknowledged the courage, energy, and spirit of the that he had agreed to accept £80 and costs in commutation ssociety. of any liabilities that might arise in the future. The judge A vote of thanks to the President was proposed by Mr. remarked that the " workman " in this case was practically WALDORF B ASTOR, and in acknowledging the vote Sir DAVID thanked Sir Thomas Barlow for the use of the library of C only a b)y. For such an accident as this he certainly should GILL not allow him to settle for less than 80, in addition to the the t Royal College of Physicians of London for the meeting.
Unqualified
negligence
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 plaintiff was a widower who claimed compensation for the loss of his wife by puerperal fever from the authorities of an institution which had provided a nurse to attend her in her confineThe nurse did not give the whole of her time to the ment. plaintiff’s wife, but attended also another woman who undoubtedly contracted puerperal fever. Upon this being diagnosed the nurse ceased to attend the deceased, but it was too late to prevent her from being infected. The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the defendants in allowing the nurse to attend both women, and also that the nurse was negligent, as she ought to have known even before the case of the second one was diagnosed as puerperal fever that it was dangerous for her to attend both women, and further that the matron who sent her out was negligent in letting her continue attending the deceased when she, the matron, knew that a rise of temperature had taken place in the other patient. Mr. Justice Pickford, in summing up, told the jury that they had to decide from the evidence whether the defendants agreedto nurse the plaintiff’s wife"or only " ’’ to supply a nurse to attend her." In the former case the defendants would be liable for any negligence of the nurse. In the latter case they would not be responsible for any negligence 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 do so. The jury found that the contract was to provide a nurse, but failed to agree as to whether there was any negligence on the part of the nurse or of the matron.
an artificial eye put in. Continuing, the judge* I have now been here sufficiently long to have a tabulated idea as to the value of every limb and every part of aman’s frame." Before he consented to settlement he should at least insist on being assured by medical evidence that future removal of the injured eye could not affect the remaining one. The case was adjourned for medical evidenceto be called.
said,
having
’’
RESEARCH DEFENCE SOCIETY. THE annual meeting of the Research Defence Society was held 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 deal to create a healthy public opinion with regard to a subject which had been much misrepresented. Scientific research was shown not to be contrary to the principles of
Christianity. Mr. SYDNEY HOLLAND, in moving the adoption of thereport of the committee, which stated that the society was steadily gaining recognition and exercising more influenceover public opinion, having during the year recruited morethan 400 members and associates, referred to the decision of the committee to open a number of shops to counteract the influence of the Antivivisection Society, and remarked that that was one of the best possible ways of promoting ther cause of true science and true humanity. Referring to the Bills for the protection of dogs which were at present before Parliament, one of which had already passed a second reading, he showed that the animals themselves had benefited by research, instancing, among other thingsr inoculation 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 received by the parent society showed an excess of R113, while the-
Dentists and Cocaine: A Jury’s Recommendation. A case in which a married woman died a few minutes after an injection of cocaine, given to her by an unqualified contributions from branches were also £100 in excess of thedentist, was before Mr. H. C. Yates, the coroner for Cheshire, previous year. On the present occasion, the report pointed) The unqualified dentist, Ernest Edwards, of on June 6th. out, the subscriptions to the parent society show a diminuNantwich, admitted having injected a quantity of cocaine tion of £106, while the contributions from the branches only into the woman’s gums. He said he had 32 years’ experience exceed the amount paid during 1911. This is preof dental work, but had never had such a case before. In slightly not due to loss of interest in the society, but sumably any summing up the coroner said he had searched but could not rather to the fact that many supporters consider it unfind any statute prohibiting any person who was not a necessary to continue their subscriptions after the issue of qualified medical man or dental practitioner from adminis- the report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection. unor other But if an any drug. tering anaesthetics Sir DAVID GILL in his presidential address, after referringqualified person who administered it led the public to to the need for the existence of the Research Defence Society believe that he was a qualified man he was liable to a in protecting science from the disastrous effects which penalty. He thought that in view of the fact that there would follow the kind of legislation which certain people was so much of this injecting going on by unqualified were advocating, said that in order to combat the misleading persons, the sooner something was done to prevent it the statements of their opponents it was proposed to open a shop better it would be for the public. If thejury thought that in London where the truth about the Research Society could in the be Edwards was guilty of gross or culpable put before the public day by day, and for this purpose he the it would be their to way operation duty performed .6600 were required, of which E340 had already been received. put him upon trial for manslaughter, but it must be proved He urged the public before joining any of the antivivisection. that the anaesthetic was the direct cause of death, and thatsocieties to read the final portion of the report of the Royal it was not due to any contributory cause. He was bound toi which was published last year. Commission in this so he did with considerable Lord CROMER, case, although say referring to the non-election of Lord! reluctance, that he did not think there was sufficient evi-Cheylesmore to the council of the Royal Society for the dence to place Edwards on his trial. The jury returned a Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said he had instituted a verdict that death was due to misadventure, but added a protest as he believed the result was due to a snap vote. If recommendation that the law should be so amended as to Lord ] Cheylesmore was not replaced on the council of ther prohibit the use of anaesthetics except by fully qualified Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals hepractitioners. The coroner said he cordially agreed withhimself 1 would withdraw from the society and he hoped the recommendation and would communicate it to the Homeothers would do the same. Office. Sir THOMAS BARLOW, President of the Royal College of An Interesting Case for Compensation. 1Physicians of London, explained that the College was During the hearing of a compensation case at the Salfordgrateful to the Research Defence Society for the work which i had done in defending men who could not well defend county court on June 9th Judge Mellor had before him a it case for approval of a settlement of a compensation claim tthemselves from serious misrepresentation. All who were made by H. Clarke, aged 21, for loss of the sight of his left eengaged in the practice of medicine and surgery who were eye, caused through the bursting of a bottle in September rnot themselves able to carry on the experiments necessary last. It was stated that the medical opinion was to the for f the advance of science and the amelioration of human effect that the young man could now return to work, and suffering s acknowledged the courage, energy, and spirit of the that he had agreed to accept £80 and costs in commutation ssociety. of any liabilities that might arise in the future. The judge A vote of thanks to the President was proposed by Mr. remarked that the " workman " in this case was practically WALDORF B ASTOR, and in acknowledging the vote Sir DAVID thanked Sir Thomas Barlow for the use of the library of C only a b)y. For such an accident as this he certainly should GILL not allow him to settle for less than 80, in addition to the the t Royal College of Physicians of London for the meeting.
Unqualified
negligence