Was a Fatal Surgery Necessary?
A coroner’s inquest casts doubt on medical practices after a patient dies following an allegedly unneeded operation at Providence Hospital.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
An autopsy performed on the body of William S. Thomas concluded that death was caused by an operation which, in the opinion of the concurrent, with the exception of the findings, was not necessary. The operation, which was performed at Providence Hospital by Dr. Cummings, showed no attempt was made to interfere with or extract the bullet in Thomas’ back. It was encysted in the muscles of the back about three inches in. Every organ of the man was in a normal condition, and the record at Providence shows that Thomas, at the time he entered the operating room, did not have the fever which it is said necessitated the operation. Coroner Hoye stated, 'The bullet wound was not such as could possibly cause death and this was healed in perfect form. The bullet was encysted in the back and had the operation not been performed, Thomas would have been alive today. He practically died from the shock.'
“The bullet wound was not such as could possibly cause death and this was healed in perfect form.”
Medical malpractice and the over-utilization of surgeries remain topics of significant civic concern today. This case highlights how investigations into surgical necessity and hospital oversight were as contentious in the early 20th century as they are in modern medical ethics debates.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.