SURGEON AND PATIENT.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18217, 30 October 1924, Page 14

SURGEON AND PATIENT.

PARENTS' ALLEGATION

MAGISTERIAL ENQUIRY

(SBESS . ASSOCIATION • TELEG*AM.)

I PALMERfSTON NORTH, October 20. ! To-day saw the opening of the Oom--1 iurasicra of Enquiry into what Iwts come to 'be known as the Bryco case, when Mr 13. Page, S.M., sat at Palmen-ton j North Courthouse*, for the purpose of enquiring into the treatment accorded | Miss Jessie Bryce in connexion with I her admission to tihe Palraerston North | Hospital in June, 1923. I Mr Taylor, for 3. J.. Bryce, father, of the patient concerned, explained that the ooraplainsxnt was not responsible for the delay occasioned in the opening of the investigation. Miss Bryce bad. been admitted to the p-uhlio hospital on a signed order front Dr. Cameron, of Feuding. It ,was the wish of the parents that she should go to the ..hospital, Mrs Bryce* considering better. treatment could be secured there, because of the better equipment, while Mr Bryce insisted on eucii a i oourse because he was opposed to tho drafting by the medical ■ f>i'ofession .of j patient's into whatever institutions they thought desirable. Prior to the girl's going into tho hospital, Dr. E. C. Bar- [ nett, a member orth'a honorary staff, had objected to her admission, though he declined to furnish'his objections t in writing. _ Tlie girl was admitted, i but later discharged though Tory ill and unable to walk,, and was■ .removed ', to Feilding on the following morning i and operated on .in a private hospital for aopendicitis. About ten days later complications developed, and Miss Biyes was ill for many months as-a result. "It is hoped," said counsel, "that something will be done to stop tho present system of drafting, for ib is possible for grave to take place if a medical man can determine who is to go to a. private and who to a public When a patient is admitted, then the proper treatment should bo administered. No member of the etaff should bo able to say 'You have no right here.' There is room for grave abuse if tho present system is to be permitted without some steps towards a remedy, and i fc may result in imparing a patient's health. A callous refusal to oparate may even result in tiio death of some member . of the community. Is the medical superintendent helpless if, a member of the hbnorary staff says 'Hands off?' Tho action of tho Hospitnl Board in refusing to giant an enquiry did nob inspire public confidence. Bryco took the matter to the Department of Health, and later tho question was taken up by the Kiwitea County Council and this enquiry was the result." In giving evidence, Jessio Bryoo described her admission to hospital.. She was admitted on Juno 9th, 1923, and discharged three days later without the operation which had been said by Dr. Cameron was essential. Dr. Barnett had seen her for three dsi.ys and suggested digestive trouble. Witness had no complaints of the treatment accorded her in hospital, only in respect of Dr. Barnett and the operation. Her mother informed her that Dr. Barnett was not going to operate and there was no use witness staying. In 'his evidence John Joseph Bryco said that when he approached Dr. Barnett for T.n admission order the latter 1 demurred. After her admission on Dr. Cameron's order, he was unaware of any intention to have the girl removed from tlie institution. Witness then detailed his prolonged negotiations with the Hospital Board and tlie Health Department. Witness declared the hospital belonged to tho people and all had a right to use it. * It was built by public funds, and maintained by what he would call a class tax. The man on the laid paid rates towards it, and in addition a subsidy came out o£ tho funds to which' the name ratepayer contributed largely. Kmily J«iai<3 Bryce, mother of tho girl, described the removal or tho girl from tlie hospital and her dissatisfaction when told' by Dr. Barnett that an operation was unnecessary. James Neil Fraser, secretary of the Board at that time, ahto yave evidence. He denied that the reason adduced in the letter writ ted by witness, in which he stated that if the Boaid reprimanded Dr. Barnett it. would bo without an honorary staff, as tl»e other members of the honorary staff had expressed their confidence in Dr. Barnett, was the rail reason why tins Board had reviewed tlie case iu Bryce'a absence. Witness could not explain.tlie absence of tho clause in tho resolution passed by the Board as forwarded to Bryce, stating that if "the latter was not satisfied he could come Wore the committee of the Board. He was unable to say whether lse was instructed to omit that portion of tho resolution. James H. Stevens, of Palraerston North, .cousin of Mrs Bryce, said Dr. Barnett a&ked him if they were taking Miss Jiryc© awav, and witness replied m the affirmative, adding tiiat he nnsinojcfaiion, wts, unnecessary.

Br. Bainett had replie<l. "An operation is necessary and tluit urgently." Witness asked '"'Wliy don't you operate ?" ana was reminded that lie mustre'miHiiber. that the srtaff gave its services fre*. The doctor then -went away lau.a-Jung. Witness insisted under crossexatnin3i.tion by counsel, that hia version Dt' the interview wsis correct. Rvidenco «as also given bv J. 11. Vincent, a.'member of the "Hospital Board, and Dr. Gr. Phillipp. of Feildm.2. Dr. Phillif.w-> said tho finant-e of patients. sometimes affected his attitude tn granting or refusing a certificate of adjnission to hospital. enquiry was then adjourned till to-morrow morning.