Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DR. THACKER'S CHARGES.

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF RECRUITS. REPORT OF COURT OF ENQUIRY. The report of the Court of Enquiry set up bv the Officer Commanding the , Canterbury Military District to investl- j gate charges brought against various j military medical officers by Dr. Thackei, i is now available. The Court arrnf» j at the following conclusion: ■ | "Cu:isi<.:<. tine: the antagonistic «tti- j tude of inind That medical' fxamincrs | have often u: d.v.i* and consider- j ing the large number of men they have j examined, without any complaint being i lodged, the Court considers that as a whole they have acted with judgment j and forbearance.' j The report suites that four ca*e.-» ( were at first enumerated by L>r. ; Thacker, who is a captain of the re- ; serves, but when the enquiry comment- : [ ed the Court requested any persons with j complaints to bring them inrward. j I Other cases were brought under its ; i notice. Of the cases mentioned in Dr. j Thackcr's telegram tp the Minister oil ; December loth, only, two were broiigu: up at the enquiry, these being the con'- ' plaints of Woods and -Burrows, which. | iu the opinion of the Court, did -lot i justify the allegation that military \ inedical examiners had been insulting lo recruits. "The two other cases adduced nv JJf. Thacker in support ol his general charges against medical examiners, continues the report , . "were those of McAnulty and Cooper, which were subsequent to the telegram referred to. and were of a trivial nature. THE McANULTY CASE. In the opinion of the Court this complaint appears trivial. The reservist was apparently antagonistically disposed towards the examining board because his medical certificate was not accepted immediately :is a lor excusing further examination. The examination appears to have been conducted with all due regard to military requirements and the ieelings ol tho reservists. THE COOPER CASE. "This reservist,"' says the Court, "made no complaint ,«gaiiist his classification, but felt 'grossly and offensively insulted' when, after an attempt to hop on a le<: injured eight months previously, lie suites that the examiner said. 'None of your darned nonsense. You can hop better than that.' There was no evidence to- corroborate this, and Colonel Ewart on oath denies having ever used such language to any recruit at any time. Cooper' attitude appeared to us to be one of antagonism towards the military examiners.'' WOOD'S CASE. "This reservist gave the Court the impression that he was antagonistically disposed towards the medical examiners," reports the Court, which is of opinion that the recruit was evidently mistaken in his idea of the attitude of Colonel Ewart. THE EMMANUEL CASE. Reporting on the case of a discharged soldier named H. Emmanuel, tile Court slates: —"The complaint was of laxity by the medical examiners in not subjecting him to further medical, examination to corroborate a medical certificate which wa,s. accepted by them .as evidence of his state of health. The Court' is of opinion that the examination was adequate and. the classification of the reservist'was made i in good faith. : | BUGLER BURROWS. i The complaint of Bugler W. Burrows was that he was insulted by Colonel T. A. Mac-Gibbon when prisoner was arrested while on sick leave, in that lie did in an insulting manner order him not to visit Dr. Thacker, threatening him with solitary confinement if he did so. The report dealing with thiscaso states:—"The C-ourt would point out that Burrows under cross-examination admitted that he was not at the time on sick leave, having on his own initiative proceeded to Christchurch instead of staving in Wellington for treatment. The charge of having spoken in an insulting manner is not substantiated by Burrows and the evidence of tho military policeman, Corporal Shadbolt, and the attendant at Colonel MacGibbon's rooms, Nurse Hassal, directly negatives it. "Colonel Mac Gibbon admits having ordered Burrows not to visit Captain Thacker, and pleads that the regulations dealing with medical attendance on invalided soldiers justified hini in doing so. Although in the Court's opinion Colonel Mac Gibbon may have exceeded his powers in this matter, nevertheless it considers that the order itself did not constitute an insult. With regard to the alleged threat of solitary confinement the evidence of Burrows that Colonel MacGibbon made it a .stipulation that if he promised not to visit Dr. Thacker he would be released from detention has not been confuted. The Court is of opinion that Burrows was justified in assuming that this stipulation constituted a threat. Burrows also claims an insult in that although on parole he was prevented from visitiuor his family doctor. The Court would point out that he was not on parole, but temporarily released from detention on conditions which he broke." "ILL-ADVISED." Reporting on the case of P. J. McNamara, the Court states "This reservist is a man of obviously highstrung, nervous temperament. The Court suggests that Lieutenant-Colonel l'itzgerald was ill-advised in making audible asides to his colleague, the tenor of which might be misconstrued. If the regulations laid down for the conduct of medical examining boards do not permit of a reservist's name being asked Colonel Fitzgerald v.-as incorrect in doing so in this case."' SUBVERSIVE OF DISCIPLINE. The Court is of opinion that Dr. Thackcr's interference has been subversive of discipline. "We consider." it says, "that many reservists appear before medical examiners armed with certificates which they have been persuaded will exempt tiiem from further examination and liability for military service. When thev discover that such is not the case they are inclined to bel>e\ e that the.v have a grievance against the medical examiners. This has apparently in certin cases been fomented by the interference of Dr. Thacker, whose conduct as an officer may be regarded as subservive of military discipline. as in the case of Bugler Burrows, where he himself failed to report the matter to district headquarters, but instead sent, a telegram to General •Henderson.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19180225.2.19

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16145, 25 February 1918, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
984

DR. THACKER'S CHARGES. Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16145, 25 February 1918, Page 4

DR. THACKER'S CHARGES. Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16145, 25 February 1918, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert