View report page

34
The following remarks are extracted from a recent number of the
Lancet, and are so much to the point that I reproduce them here :—
PUERPERAL INFECTION.
A coroner's inquest was held last week at Market Harborough,
Leicestershire, upon a woman who died of puerperal
fever. The circumstances pointed to infection of the
woman by the midwife who attended her. But the medical
evidence was not absolutely clear as to the facts, and the
medical opinions were not expressed without the admission
of a doubt. The evidence was that on January 1st the
midwife delivered a woman, who died of puerperal fever.
It was said that the medical officer of health then directed
the midwife that she ought not to attend a case of labour
for at least a month. The midwife said she had not
understood this, and the jury gave her the benefit of the
doubt, and accepted her statement on the point. The
midwife attended another woman on January 20th, who
did well. See then attended, on January 25th, the woman
on whom the inquest was held, who died of puerperal fever.
Two of the doctors who gave evidence at the inquest, said
that, although they thought it probable that the midwife
had given puerperal fever to the patient, yet they could
not be absolutely certain of it. The jury accordingly found
that the woman died from puerperal fever ; that there was
not sufficieit evidence to show that the patient's death
was due to the midwife's negligence; that the midwife
had been guilty of gross and culpable negligence, which
was deserving of punishment, and that they thought she
ought to be severely censured. We do not see how, upon
the evidence, the jury could have come to any other
verdict. We observe a comment in a local newspaper to
the effect that, from the conduct if the midwife in court,
and the way in which she replied to the coroner, it was
evident she did not realise the serious nature of the se.
This shews that it is well that inquests should be held in