"Meningitis is a disease which causes inflammation of one or more of the three membranes which envelop the central nervous system consisting of the brain and spinal chord [sic].
The general practitioner had treated the respiratory infection with ampicillin administered orally, but due to vomiting its therapeutic effect may have been to some extent frustrated.
The consultant paediatrician in charge of the case, Dr McClure, instructed that 10,000 units of penicillin be injected intrathecally, that is to say by way of lumbar puncture into the subarachnoid space containing the CSF.
The reason for this procedure was to bring about that the penicillin might most readily reach the infected meninges and attack the bacteria which were causing the disease.
These were successful in saving the child's life and by 1 December the immediate ill effects of the overdose appeared to have been surmounted.
[2] Lord Ackner, who gave the final judgment, offered a good anecdotal account of the evidence at trial about the possible causes of the boy's deafness.
He said he had searched the literature, he had computer scans done by three different processes, he had watched for years and in his experience there was no single recorded case of deafness from such an overdose.
He was asked in terms by the Lord Ordinary whether, as a bacteriologist, he was saying there was any reason why an overdose of penicillin injected intrathecally could not cause deafness.
In answer to a further question from the learned judge he said:"All things are possible and in medicine we never say never, but from the point of view of scientific medicine to my mind there is no evidence to incriminate an overdose of intrathecal Benzylpenicillin as a cause of deafness in this or in other cases and on the other side of the waterfall there is a massive amount of evidence to incriminate pneumococcal meningitis as one of the best known causes.
The Lord Ordinary, however, developed his own theory, which was not put to any of the expert medical witnesses who gave evidence for the respondents nor was it canvassed at all at the hearing.
The First Division of the Court of Session held that the appellant was not entitled to succeed on the basis of this theory and this decision has not been challenged before your Lordships.Lord Ackner agreed that this case was distinguishable from McGhee.