Awareness is due to negligence during general anaesthesia for caesarean section

International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 178-180

  Hull, C J ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANESTHETIC AGENT;

AWARENESS; CESAREAN SECTION; GENERAL ANESTHESIA; NEGLIGENCE; OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIA; PATIENT CARE; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW;

EID: 0030750685     PISSN: 0959289X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-289X(97)80084-2     Document Type: Note

References (9)

1. Crawford J S. Anaesthesia for caesarean section: a proposed method of evaluation with analysis of a technique. Br J Anaesth 1962; 34: 179-194.
2. Tunstall M E. Anaesthesia for obstetrics. In: Nunn J F, Gray T C, eds. General Anaesthesia, 4th edn. London: Butterworth, 1980: pp 1384-1385.
3. Moir D D. Anaesthesia for caesarean section. An evaluation of a method using low concentrations of halothane, and 50% of oxygen. Br J Anaesth 1970; 42: 136-141.
4. Piggott S E, Bogod D G, Rosen M, Rees G A D, Harmer M. Isoflurane with either 100% oxygen or 50% nitrous oxide in oxygen for caesarean section. Br J Anaesth 1990; 65: 325-329.
5. Taylor vs Worcester Health Authority. McKinnon J, 1991 2 Med LR.
6. Ludlow vs Swindon Health Authority. Hutchinson J, 1989 QBD 21.
7. Brahams D. Caesarean section: pain and awareness without negligence. Anaesthesia 1990; 45: 161-162.
8. Bolam vs Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957 2 All ER 118; 1957 1 WLR 582.
9. Sidaway vs Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and others. 1985 1 All ER 643 HL.