I’ve just come across this, and thought it might be of use to any Canadian detectives who inhabit the forum. It comes from the ‘British Journal of Nursing’ dated 17th March 1917, and presumably had been previously reported in the local or national press:

‘The tragedy at the Duchess of Connaught’s Hospital, Cliveden, near Maidenhead, when a Canadian soldier lost his life owing to an orderly giving him two tabloids of perchloride of mercury instead of the aspirin tablets ordered, draws attention once again to the necessity of keeping poisons under lock and key, and entirely separate from non-poisonous drugs. In this case the two boxes were kept in the dispensary side by side. The dose of perchloride of mercury is one thirty-second to one sixteenth of a grain, whereas the dose administered was 10 grains. The jury found that the deceased met with his death by taking perchloride of mercury accidentally, and added a rider that greater precautions should be taken in administering such medicines, which should not be left to orderlies to keep and dispense, and that poisons should be labeled and kept in a secret locker. They further expressed the opinion that there had been a certain amount of neglect in the case.’


Sue

EWhat a horrible story! What happened to the orderly, Sue - do you know?
Marina

[quote=SueL,Mar 28 2005, 01:47 PM]
I’ve just come across this, and thought it might be of use to any Canadian detectives who inhabit the forum. It comes from the ‘British Journal of Nursing’ dated 17th March 1917, and presumably had been previously reported in the local or national press:

Very interesting thanks Sue.

I wonder if some government department kept formal records of such accidents?

I remember being rather shocked at hearing from one of my university professors during a Health Psychology lecture,that hospitals can make one ill.

Common knowledge nowadays.

Robbie

The term 'Do the patient no harm' comes to mind, and is part of the Hippocratic oath and has always [since Miss Nightingale] formed part of the nurses' professional code of conduct. Which just goes to prove that hospitals must have done patients harm for a long time, otherwise there would have been no need to say it!

Marina

No further news of the orderly, but he probably had some interesting answers to the question 'And what did you do in the war Daddy?'

Sue

lol!
mARINA

Not Canadian but love a bit of detective work..................I have 8 possible names for the victim.............I have worked on 3 assumptions, the first rock solid, the second pretty much so but the third a bit iffy..............I have assumed that the victim died before the date of the article...........that's the rock solid assumption. I have assumed that the reference to the soldier being Canadian (i.e. serving with a Canadian unit rather than being Canadian born) is accurate. Thirdly (& this could be the iffy one) I have assumed the victim was buried in Cliveden War Cemetery, which served the Duchess of Connaught’s Hospital.

The possibles are as follows:
Pte Leonard Herbert Garland 141200
Pte Oliva Germain 448103
Acting Bombadier John Archibald O'Brien 41573
Pte Thomas Page 166058
Pte William Poole 19355
Pte Frederick Gordon Reynolds 24759
Cpl Frederick Slater 34411
Pte Frank Williams 444101

Can anyone with a copy of Wigney's Roll of Honour whittle this list down any further?

Will

There seems to be a possible problem in that the British Journal of Nursing kept up with the times - it was published weekly, and most of its news was fresh. I'd assumed that the Canadian had died very shortly before the date of the article, possibly a fortnight or so. All the men you've named were buried at Cliveden prior to August 1916, so is it possible that after that date the burial place was changed, possibly because it was getting full? I can't imagine the BNJ would have been reporting the death a year or so after the event.

It seems quite surprising that Cliveden cemetery had so many burials - perhaps the orderly had been careless more than once!

Regards
Sue

Sue.............There are quite a few burials post March 1917 so I don't think the burial place of patients was changed..............However given what you've said about the BJN being pretty well up to date with their articles it is quite possible that the victim is not buried at Cliveden at all...........A scenario which springs immediately to mind is that the victim was British born (quite likely if you think that several of the list I proposed as possibles were British by birth) & his family had his body buried locally..............In which case none of those I listed are right

Will, I looked through Wigney's Roll and all the men you mentioned either died from wounds or disease.

Chris, thanks for that...............I guess that means none of my possible victims were correct.

Will, another possibility to consider, did the authorities provide the family with the actual cause of death or was it described as died from disease?

I think Chris is likely correct. I can't see them saying "ah, yes well these little tablets look alike and ..."

Most likely it was "officially" reported as something other than "poisoned"

marc

Good point Chris, maybe the victim was one of those listed.........

Will, Wigney also gives "death from sickness" which may have been used to describe this soldier's death. I'll keep looking.

Fingers crossed