Death of Young Man in Hospital  (P.A.) AUCKLAND, Mar. 17. A claim for damages on behalf of the widow and child of George Victor Sandilands, who died in the Auckland Hospital, was brought by the Public Trustee (represented by Mr A. K. North, K.C. and Mr D. P. Richmond) against the Auckland Hospital Board (represented by Mr V. R. Meredith and Mr G. D. Speight) before Mr Justice Fair and a special jury of 12 in the Supreme Court to-day. The claim was for £4OOO, plaintiff maintaining that the wife and her child were dependent on the earnings of the husband, who died on the operating table at the hospital on May 8, 1945. Explaining the case for plaintiff, Mr Richmond said that Sandilands, who was aged 26, underwent a nasal operation in which a combination of chloroform and adrenalin was used. Evidence would be produced to show that this was contrary to standard medical teaching and against the advice of medical literature, which abounded in warnings against the use of those drugs. The claim for damages was based partly on the probable financial loss which the widow and child would suffer through the loss of the husband’s earnings in the Post and Telegraph Department, where he had prospects of advancement. Bert Victor Sandilands, father of the dead man, said the shock of his death affected his wife’s nerves to such an extent that she and the child returned to Scotland, where her parents lived, in the hope that she would recover. Evidence was given by Dr. G. F. V. Anson, director of anaesthesia at the Auckland Hospital, that he had considered the use of a combination of chloroform and adrenalin a dangerous practice, and afterward gave instructions to the surgeons and anaesthetists that adrenalin should not be used when anaesthesia was produced with chloroform or a mixture containing chloroform. He added that the use of chloroform has almost been abandoned in big clinics and teaching schools. The number of deaths under light anaesthesia was not the only reason for condemning its use. Its administration sometimes damaged the body tissues. It was used in llose surgery. Cross-examined by Mr Meredith, witness said there was opposition from one surgeon to the ban on chloroform at the Auckland Hospital and mild objection from others. He understood that the proportion of deaths from chloroform was one in 2000, and he did not agree altogether with the figures of one in 400 submitted by counsel. The case was adjourned until tomorrow.[ Ashburton Guardian, Volume 68, Issue 135, 19 March 1948, Page 6]