Territory Stories

Coroners Act In the matter of Coronial Findings and Recommendation into the Death of Ms Souzana Afianos pursuant to section 46B dated 1 January 2004

Details:

Title

Coroners Act In the matter of Coronial Findings and Recommendation into the Death of Ms Souzana Afianos pursuant to section 46B dated 1 January 2004

Other title

Tabled paper 1394

Collection

Tabled Papers for 9th Assembly 2001 - 2005; Tabled Papers; ParliamentNT

Date

2004-06-25

Description

Deemed

Notes

Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory under Standing Order 240. Where copyright subsists with a third party it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Language

English

Subject

Tabled papers

File type

application/pdf

Use

Copyright

Copyright owner

See publication

License

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C1968A00063

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/284441

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/408388

Page content

because of pain. He qualified this however by indicating that it would not be unusual for obese people to experience discomfort when lying down. He said this would indicate abdominal pain which may have indicated the need for a CT scan. However, he doubted that a CT scan would have been informative at that time as it would not have shown the infection nor the slight bleed which he thought was occurring at the time. He said that imaging would not have detected the infective process on 18 February 2002. He said that there was no one test which then would have shown the onset and progress of the infection. Particularly, he said that although a high white cell count would normally indicate an infection, in this case at that time that result would have properly been attributed to the recent surgery. 42. He maintained his view throughout that the existence of the abdominal pain indicated the need for review by the surgeon. He was critical of the fact that Dr Treacy was not contacted at that time because he had the expertise to determine, better than anyone else, what the abdominal pain complained of by the patient resulted from. Ultimately however, given that the pa t ien ts condit ion appeared stable and to settle with oral analgesia, he doubted that any further treatment would have been instigated. He confirmed that in his view there was no evidence of the secondary haemorrhage on 18 February 2002, although what occurred was the prequel to that condition. Having regard to the symptoms of the Deceased between the 18th and the 20th \ February, in his opinion a laparotomy was not indicated at the time as there was no obvious evidence of interperi tonial catastrophe. He said that would not have warranted the risk of further surgery. I think all this is very telling. 43. He said that given the apparent normality of the signs and observations at that time, he could not really fault Dr M cN airs treatment on that occasion. He agreed that Dr M cN airs actions all appear reasonable and that Dr McNair had good reason to feel comfortable with what he had done and the discharge of the patient. The effects of the codeine phosphate given by Dr McNair would not have masked the rebound or guarding and would only 19