The Woolley and Roe case

Albert Woolley and Cecil Roe were healthy, middle-aged men who became parap legic after spinal anaesthesia for minor surgery at the Chesterfield Royal Hospital in 1947. The spinal anaesthetics were given by the same anaestheti st, Dr Malcolm Graham, using the same drug on the same day at the same hosp ital. The outcome for the patients and their families was devastating, as i t 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 Profes sor Macintosh's suggestion that phenol, in which the ampoules of local anae sthetic had been immersed, had contaminated the local anaesthetic through i nvisible cracks. In an interview 30 yr after the verdict, Dr Graham believe d that the tragedy was caused by contamination of the spinal needles or syr inges 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 The subsequent explanation that, on the day in question, descaling liquid in the sterilizing pan had not been replaced by water, supported his belief and finally offered a credible expl anation. We review the Woolley and Roe case, the status of spinal anaesthes ia before and after 1947, and the relevant medico-legal judgments in claims for negligence in the early days of the National Health Service.