Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Maltby, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Clayton, K. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Maltby, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Clayton, K. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 84, Issue 1 121-126, Copyright © 2000 by Oxford University Press

ARTICLES

The Woolley and Roe case

JR Maltby, CD Hutter and KC Clayton
Department of Anesthesia, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada.

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 The subsequent explanation that, on the day in question, descaling liquid in the sterilizing pan had not been replaced by water, supported his belief and finally offered a credible explanation.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.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
L. Talbot, C. Lewis, C. D. D. Hutter, I. Rice, and M. Y. K. Wee
Obstetric epidurals and chronic adhesive arachnoiditis
Br. J. Anaesth., June 1, 2004; 92(6): 902 - 903.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 TraumaHome page
J. Elliot
Regional anaesthesia in trauma
Trauma, July 1, 2001; 3(3): 161 - 174.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.