The Woolley and Roe case

Albert Woolley and Cecil Roe were healthy, middle-aged men who became paraplegic after spinal anaesthesia for minor surgery at the Chesterfield Royal Hospital in 1947. The spinal anaesthetics were given by the same anaesthetist, Dr Malcolm Graham, using the same drug on the same day at the same hosp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of anaesthesia : BJA 2000-01, Vol.84 (1), p.121-126
Hauptverfasser: Maltby, J R, Hutter, C D, Clayton, K C
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 126
container_issue 1
container_start_page 121
container_title British journal of anaesthesia : BJA
container_volume 84
creator Maltby, J R
Hutter, C D
Clayton, K C
description Albert Woolley and Cecil Roe were healthy, middle-aged men who became paraplegic after spinal anaesthesia for minor surgery at the Chesterfield Royal Hospital in 1947. The spinal anaesthetics were given by the same anaesthetist, Dr Malcolm Graham, using the same drug on the same day at the same hospital. The outcome for the patients and their families was devastating, as it was for the use of spinal anaesthesia in the UK. At the trial 6 yr later, and against the opinion of leading neurologists, the judge accepted Professor Macintosh’s suggestion that phenol, in which the ampoules of local anaesthetic had been immersed, had contaminated the local anaesthetic through invisible cracks. In an interview 30 yr after the verdict, Dr Graham believed tha the tragedy was caused by contamination of the spinal needles or syringes during the sterilization process. The subsequent explanation that, on the day in question, descaling liquid in the sterilizing pan had not been replaced by water, supported his belief and finally offered a credible explanation. We review the Woolley and Roe case, the status of spinal anaesthesia before and after 1947, and the relevant medico-legal judgments in claims for negligence in the early days of the National Health Service.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013370
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71009922</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013370</oup_id><els_id>S000709121738248X</els_id><sourcerecordid>71009922</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c530t-94274fff326668b3115582de7c5ca856650ccd73ab605c1a641bb3df3ebbeb503</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkM9P2zAYhi3EBF3hzmmqENot3ffZsZ1wm8p-IFWahEAcLdv5IlKlcWc30_jvSZWiASd2ei_P-77Sw9g5whyhFF_C3zrEahX62Nk2zd3Kzi2gEBoO2ARzjZnSGg_ZBAB0BiXyY_YxpRUAal7KI3aMoHOQKp-ws9sHmt2H0Lb0OLNdNbsJNPM20Qn7UA_rdLrPKbv7_u128TNb_vpxvfi6zLwUsM3KnOu8rmvBlVKFE4hSFrwi7aW3hVRKgveVFtYpkB6tytE5UdWCnCMnQUzZ53F3E8PvntLWrJvkqW1tR6FPRiNAWXI-gOdvwGcDBktdKIlFOUCXI-RjSClSbTaxWdv4aBDMTp55Lc8M8sxe3lD-tH_o3ZqqF9XR1gBc7AGbvG3raDvfpH8cVznnO0yOWOg3__d_NfZo8P2noWiSb6jzVDWR_NZUoXnPzBMEe6Ym</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>197865189</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Woolley and Roe case</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Maltby, J R ; Hutter, C D ; Clayton, K C</creator><creatorcontrib>Maltby, J R ; Hutter, C D ; Clayton, K C</creatorcontrib><description>Albert Woolley and Cecil Roe were healthy, middle-aged men who became paraplegic after spinal anaesthesia for minor surgery at the Chesterfield Royal Hospital in 1947. The spinal anaesthetics were given by the same anaesthetist, Dr Malcolm Graham, using the same drug on the same day at the same hospital. The outcome for the patients and their families was devastating, as it was for the use of spinal anaesthesia in the UK. At the trial 6 yr later, and against the opinion of leading neurologists, the judge accepted Professor Macintosh’s suggestion that phenol, in which the ampoules of local anaesthetic had been immersed, had contaminated the local anaesthetic through invisible cracks. In an interview 30 yr after the verdict, Dr Graham believed tha the tragedy was caused by contamination of the spinal needles or syringes during the sterilization process. The subsequent explanation that, on the day in question, descaling liquid in the sterilizing pan had not been replaced by water, supported his belief and finally offered a credible explanation. We review the Woolley and Roe case, the status of spinal anaesthesia before and after 1947, and the relevant medico-legal judgments in claims for negligence in the early days of the National Health Service.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-0912</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6771</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013370</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10740564</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJANAD</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Anesthesia ; Anesthesia, Spinal - adverse effects ; Anesthesia, Spinal - history ; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy ; Biological and medical sciences ; Drug Contamination ; England ; Equipment Contamination ; History of medicine ; History, 20th Century ; Humans ; Legislation, Medical - history ; Liability, Legal - history ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous ; Paraplegia - etiology ; Paraplegia - history ; State Medicine - history ; State Medicine - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><ispartof>British journal of anaesthesia : BJA, 2000-01, Vol.84 (1), p.121-126</ispartof><rights>2000 British Journal of Anaesthesia</rights><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright British Medical Association Jan 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c530t-94274fff326668b3115582de7c5ca856650ccd73ab605c1a641bb3df3ebbeb503</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4010,27900,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1264224$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10740564$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maltby, J R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hutter, C D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clayton, K C</creatorcontrib><title>The Woolley and Roe case</title><title>British journal of anaesthesia : BJA</title><addtitle>Br J Anaesth</addtitle><addtitle>Br J Anaesth</addtitle><description>Albert Woolley and Cecil Roe were healthy, middle-aged men who became paraplegic after spinal anaesthesia for minor surgery at the Chesterfield Royal Hospital in 1947. The spinal anaesthetics were given by the same anaesthetist, Dr Malcolm Graham, using the same drug on the same day at the same hospital. The outcome for the patients and their families was devastating, as it was for the use of spinal anaesthesia in the UK. At the trial 6 yr later, and against the opinion of leading neurologists, the judge accepted Professor Macintosh’s suggestion that phenol, in which the ampoules of local anaesthetic had been immersed, had contaminated the local anaesthetic through invisible cracks. In an interview 30 yr after the verdict, Dr Graham believed tha the tragedy was caused by contamination of the spinal needles or syringes during the sterilization process. The subsequent explanation that, on the day in question, descaling liquid in the sterilizing pan had not been replaced by water, supported his belief and finally offered a credible explanation. We review the Woolley and Roe case, the status of spinal anaesthesia before and after 1947, and the relevant medico-legal judgments in claims for negligence in the early days of the National Health Service.</description><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Spinal - adverse effects</subject><subject>Anesthesia, Spinal - history</subject><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Drug Contamination</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Equipment Contamination</subject><subject>History of medicine</subject><subject>History, 20th Century</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Legislation, Medical - history</subject><subject>Liability, Legal - history</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Paraplegia - etiology</subject><subject>Paraplegia - history</subject><subject>State Medicine - history</subject><subject>State Medicine - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><issn>0007-0912</issn><issn>1471-6771</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkM9P2zAYhi3EBF3hzmmqENot3ffZsZ1wm8p-IFWahEAcLdv5IlKlcWc30_jvSZWiASd2ei_P-77Sw9g5whyhFF_C3zrEahX62Nk2zd3Kzi2gEBoO2ARzjZnSGg_ZBAB0BiXyY_YxpRUAal7KI3aMoHOQKp-ws9sHmt2H0Lb0OLNdNbsJNPM20Qn7UA_rdLrPKbv7_u128TNb_vpxvfi6zLwUsM3KnOu8rmvBlVKFE4hSFrwi7aW3hVRKgveVFtYpkB6tytE5UdWCnCMnQUzZ53F3E8PvntLWrJvkqW1tR6FPRiNAWXI-gOdvwGcDBktdKIlFOUCXI-RjSClSbTaxWdv4aBDMTp55Lc8M8sxe3lD-tH_o3ZqqF9XR1gBc7AGbvG3raDvfpH8cVznnO0yOWOg3__d_NfZo8P2noWiSb6jzVDWR_NZUoXnPzBMEe6Ym</recordid><startdate>200001</startdate><enddate>200001</enddate><creator>Maltby, J R</creator><creator>Hutter, C D</creator><creator>Clayton, K C</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Oxford Publishing Limited (England)</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200001</creationdate><title>The Woolley and Roe case</title><author>Maltby, J R ; Hutter, C D ; Clayton, K C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c530t-94274fff326668b3115582de7c5ca856650ccd73ab605c1a641bb3df3ebbeb503</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Spinal - adverse effects</topic><topic>Anesthesia, Spinal - history</topic><topic>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Drug Contamination</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Equipment Contamination</topic><topic>History of medicine</topic><topic>History, 20th Century</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Legislation, Medical - history</topic><topic>Liability, Legal - history</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Paraplegia - etiology</topic><topic>Paraplegia - history</topic><topic>State Medicine - history</topic><topic>State Medicine - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maltby, J R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hutter, C D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clayton, K C</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of anaesthesia : BJA</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maltby, J R</au><au>Hutter, C D</au><au>Clayton, K C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Woolley and Roe case</atitle><jtitle>British journal of anaesthesia : BJA</jtitle><stitle>Br J Anaesth</stitle><addtitle>Br J Anaesth</addtitle><date>2000-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>84</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>121</spage><epage>126</epage><pages>121-126</pages><issn>0007-0912</issn><eissn>1471-6771</eissn><coden>BJANAD</coden><abstract>Albert Woolley and Cecil Roe were healthy, middle-aged men who became paraplegic after spinal anaesthesia for minor surgery at the Chesterfield Royal Hospital in 1947. The spinal anaesthetics were given by the same anaesthetist, Dr Malcolm Graham, using the same drug on the same day at the same hospital. The outcome for the patients and their families was devastating, as it was for the use of spinal anaesthesia in the UK. At the trial 6 yr later, and against the opinion of leading neurologists, the judge accepted Professor Macintosh’s suggestion that phenol, in which the ampoules of local anaesthetic had been immersed, had contaminated the local anaesthetic through invisible cracks. In an interview 30 yr after the verdict, Dr Graham believed tha the tragedy was caused by contamination of the spinal needles or syringes during the sterilization process. The subsequent explanation that, on the day in question, descaling liquid in the sterilizing pan had not been replaced by water, supported his belief and finally offered a credible explanation. We review the Woolley and Roe case, the status of spinal anaesthesia before and after 1947, and the relevant medico-legal judgments in claims for negligence in the early days of the National Health Service.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>10740564</pmid><doi>10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013370</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0007-0912
ispartof British journal of anaesthesia : BJA, 2000-01, Vol.84 (1), p.121-126
issn 0007-0912
1471-6771
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71009922
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Anesthesia
Anesthesia, Spinal - adverse effects
Anesthesia, Spinal - history
Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy
Biological and medical sciences
Drug Contamination
England
Equipment Contamination
History of medicine
History, 20th Century
Humans
Legislation, Medical - history
Liability, Legal - history
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous
Paraplegia - etiology
Paraplegia - history
State Medicine - history
State Medicine - legislation & jurisprudence
title The Woolley and Roe case
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T10%3A15%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Woolley%20and%20Roe%20case&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20anaesthesia%20:%20BJA&rft.au=Maltby,%20J%20R&rft.date=2000-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=121&rft.epage=126&rft.pages=121-126&rft.issn=0007-0912&rft.eissn=1471-6771&rft.coden=BJANAD&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013370&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71009922%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=197865189&rft_id=info:pmid/10740564&rft_oup_id=10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013370&rft_els_id=S000709121738248X&rfr_iscdi=true