The report of the ordinary and resident medical officers and the annual report of the Inspector and Director, of the Public Hospital, for 1864, with the reply of the ordinary medical officers thereto : the letter of Alexander Fiddes ... and his correspondence with the governor, and the executive committee on the subject of his resignation and retirement from the Hospital : the letter of L.Q. Bowerbank ... in reply to Dr. Fiddes, and Dr. Fiddes' reply to same : also, the evidence adduced at the coroner's inquest, held on Richard Bailey, lately an inmate of the Public Hospital.
- Kingston Public Hospital (Jamaica)
- Date:
- 1865
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The report of the ordinary and resident medical officers and the annual report of the Inspector and Director, of the Public Hospital, for 1864, with the reply of the ordinary medical officers thereto : the letter of Alexander Fiddes ... and his correspondence with the governor, and the executive committee on the subject of his resignation and retirement from the Hospital : the letter of L.Q. Bowerbank ... in reply to Dr. Fiddes, and Dr. Fiddes' reply to same : also, the evidence adduced at the coroner's inquest, held on Richard Bailey, lately an inmate of the Public Hospital. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
![Journal; there is a distinct one for the Surgical department. Question by Mr. Lyon, a Juror.—Do you think that any unski] ful person inserting a catheter in the urethra, might possibly bred same and leave it, not knowing of the accident? Answer.—I do not think any Surgeon would possibly do so. Mr. Lyon was not satisfied with the answer. Dr. Somerville.—Any other person would be unskilful w:J did so. To another Juror.—A No. 8 catheter might have been kept in after the operation for about 48 hours. Mr. Berry, a Juror, not having as }Tet heard the cause of the breakage of the instrument in the deceased, j>ut the following queaJ tion:— Do you know of your own knowledge what caused the catheteij to break in the urethra of Bailey,—whether by accident or other! wise ? Answer.—I was informed only that it was brokert by accident. I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, and also a Licentiate of the Apothecary’s Hall of London. Question by the Foreman —Should the catheter be entire iy removed at 48 hours, or be re-introduced ? Answer.—It ought to be re-introduced after 48 hours. By Mr. Lyon.—Ought not the catheter No. 8, to have been kept into the perinaeum until the wound was closed ? Answer.—Yes ; but not continuously. Cordelia Lindo, head nurse of the Public Hospital, sworn.—The deceased, Richard Bailey, was under my care as nurse. On the next morning after the instrument was broken, I was going through the yard, along with the dresser; I heard a man named Bennett call out to Dawkins, the dresser, and he (Dawkins) went up to No. 6 ward where deceased was in; immediately after Dawkins came down anJ ran through, the yard for Dr. Field, and Dr. Field came into iii£ hospital and went upstairs to the ward where the deceased was. 1 did not interfere again, being on my duty. Mr. Alfred Delgado was of opinion that there was enough eri-l dence for the Jury to come to a verdict; his (Mr. D’s mind was already made up as to the verdict. The Jury was strongly opposed! to such a proceeding. Moritz Stern, Esquire, Member of the Royal College of Surgeoncy England—On the 14th January last I was the Senior Resident Medical Officer of the Public Hospital, Richard Bailey, the decease**! was admitted on the 11th of January; the observations under ill head of disease and remarks were written by me on the ticket. j|! noticed that my name has been erased were the signature is required*. although the entries have been allowed to remain ; I -would therefore! conclude from that that my successors saw no reason to dissent from the view I took of the case. As I was to leave the hospital oip the 15th in consequence of the expiry of my term of office, I contented; myself with stating the condition of Bailey as apparent to external observation, detailing at the same time his own statement; I did not write on his ticket stricture of the urethra, because I did not consider that occlusion of the ineatos urinarius was necessarily indicative of](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22317983_0046.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
