Abstract
In the second half of the nineteenth century and up to the First World War, anaesthetic practice in Scotland differed markedly from that in England. Chloroform was invariably used in Scotland with apparent disregard for reports of deaths under its influence. By contrast, in England concern about chloroform deaths, which were subject to inquests there, led to ether often being chosen instead. This article examines the different interpretations and handling of chloroform deaths in the two countries, drawing on the medical journals of the period and archived documents. Quite symmetrical claims were made. Whereas in England the danger of chloroform was perceived to be an inherent property of the agent itself, in Scotland the blame was thrown on a timid method of administration. The interpretation in Scotland was supported by a network of doctors who promoted chloroform as effective, safe and easy to administer; manufacturers who had monopoly of its manufacture; and legal practitioners who were uninterested in investigating anaesthetic deaths. Although the reporting of anaesthetic deaths was flawed in England, underreporting was far worse in Scotland. The fear of anaesthetic deaths in England allowed the seeds of specialisation in anaesthesia to germinate, whereas in Scotland the downplaying of anaesthetic risk obviated the notion of such specialisation.