Volume 7 - History of Anaesthesia Society

On Friday August 27 1858, a young wanan presented herself at the house
oE an Egsom druggist, one i.lr Keeling, who also maintainep an extensive
dental practice in Surrey and the neighbouring counties. She desired
to have a tooth extracted under the influence of chloroform.
'The woman, descril d throughout as 'a remarkably tall, Eine young woinan
of two-and-t~ent~',~ was the servant of Dr Samuel Barrett, a physician
of the neighbouring parish of Ewell. She had lived in the household for
some seven years, and during that tiine had become a cherished companion
to ii*r mistress and the children. She had witnessed the successful
removal of teeth under chloroform administered by Mr Keeling, not only
from her mistress buf also the two little boys aged 10 and 12. Now,
suffering from toothache herself, she wished to have the same treatment.
Dr Barrett, secure in the knowledge that she was in good health, gave
his written authocity.
Armed with this paper, and accompanied by Yrs Barrett, she walked to
Epsom. Yr Keeling administered chloroform, 'merely to deaden tE
nervous sensibiLity oE his patient - not to produce unconsciousness .
She was given chloroEorm on a napkin to inhale, and when she said 'now'
thc tooth was extracted almost instantaneously. She appeared to faint,
and &spite vigorous and prolonged attempts at resuscitation, could not
be revived.
Mr Keeling promptly despatched messengers into the town, to seek medical
assistance. Dr Barrett was, coincidentally, on his way to Epsoin, and
was met by one. fle hurried to the scene, but could do no more than to
pronounce the unfortunate victim dead. Mrs Rarrett wa deeply
distressed, but 'Mr Keeling's nerve never once forsook hi,nl' and he
conducted himself admirably throughout.
The inquest, with jury, was held on the following day, Saturday August
28, 1853. he verdict was 'Accidental Death'. Mr Keelig was
'acquitted oE the slightest blame', but the jury desired to recomnend
the cautious use of chloroform in triELing operations in future. On
this subject, Mr Keeling himself expressed the opinion that death had
been caused by the administration of a minimum quantity of chloroform,
and he wished to emphasise thereEore that this mink quantity,
administered with the greatest caution, may yet prove Fatal. He
concurred entirely with the view oE the jury about the future use of
chloroform in operations of a minor character.
The Full story appeared in the 'Times' of Monday August 30, 1858, and
was followed by a vigorous correspndence. A letter appearing th
following day gave the writer's idiosyncratic views on resuscitation, 9
and someone signing hinself 'M.R.C.S.' wrote to ment on the
appropri te use oE chl~roform.~ This last excited the derision of the
'Lamet" which was much involved in the chlomform debate. Although
its opinions were, of course, anonymous, they bear the characteristic