A most serious case


indeed


What began with a simple work-related injury in 1902 would end a year later with a death, a court case and a piece of medico-legal history. Allan Gaw investigates


I


N April 1902, Andrew Gillies, a joiner from the small Scottish town of Stewarton in Ayrshire, injured his leſt arm. He likely developed a haemarthrosis with adhesions which his GP, Dr John


Cunningham, advised needed manipulation under anaesthesia. Hesitant about this course of action, Gillies sought a second opinion from a doctor in Glasgow who concurred with his GP. Tree months aſter his initial injury and with little sign of


improvement, Gillies agreed to the procedure which would be performed in his own home under chloroform. Exactly what happened in the Gillies household that Sunday evening in July 1902 is open to question as those present subsequently disagreed on their stories. What is clear, however, is that Gillies, then aged 52, did not survive the procedure. His death certificate listed “syncope” as his cause of death, which was most likely a cardiac arrhythmia induced by the chloroform. Five months later Gillies’ widow sued Dr Cunningham, demanding


damages of £1,000 (approximately equivalent to 10 years’ wages of her dead husband). Dr Cunningham sought the support of the newly formed Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland (MDDUS), and indeed his was the first medico-legal case they considered at their inaugural Central Committee Meeting in January 1903. Te MDDUS had been set up in May 1902 in the interests of the


medical and dental professions in Scotland. Cunningham had submitted details of the action against him on 14 January 1903 – the same day he had also applied for membership. As he had not been a member when the patient’s death had occurred some six months earlier, the MDDUS officers, concerned about the setting of


14


precedent, understandably decided that they could provide no further assistance. Cunningham then chose to retain the Union’s law agents, Turnbull and Findlay, to represent him.


Utmost propriety Two months later the case against Cunningham came to court and revolved around three grounds of fault: that he should have had a skilled medical assistant, that his method of chloroform administration was outdated and dangerous, and that he had anaesthetised Gillies without having resuscitation equipment at hand, including a hypodermic syringe and appropriate drugs. Tese allegations were systematically addressed during the


two-day trial and a parade of expert witnesses were brought forward to support Cunningham’s clinical approach to the problem. Although these men oſten stated they might have done things slightly differently, they found his actions, by and large, to be consistent with current practices. One expert witness, Dr Joseph Bell from Edinburgh, who had some years earlier served as the model for a fictional detective created by his former student Arthur Conan Doyle, even said Cunningham had treated the patient, “with the utmost propriety”. Te nature of Gillies’ death was scrutinised and a great deal of


emphasis was placed on the post mortem findings which showed no evidence of asphyxia, but which were consistent with syncope. Te method of chloroform administration used by Cunningham had involved not a mask but a towel applied to the face doused in the anaesthetic. Cunningham claimed to have used a method


SUMMONS


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24