WELLINGTON HOSPITAL METHODS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 301, 16 September 1919, Page 6

WELLINGTON HOSPITAL METHODS

COMPLAINT FEOM PETONE. At a previous meeting of the Petcne Bordugh Council a complaint was made by Councillor Anderson of the apparent neglect and want of consideration shown by the AA'ellington Hospital authorities iii the ca6c of a little girl, Lily Gardner, who was admitted into the hospital apparently suffering from somo unknown illness. It was stated that the child had been discharged from tho hospital before being cured, and before being out very long had to bo readmitted. As a result of tho complaint made by Councillor Anderson and a lotter from the father of the child, the Petono Borough Council decided to write to tho hospital authorities and ask for an explanation. At last night's- meeting of the Petono Council a letter was received from tho AYellinglon Hospital and Charitable Board explaining tho position. According to tho secretary of the board, the child was readmitted to the hospital on August 27 with a recommendation from Dr. Faulke that the Macavthy Homo would be likely to meet tho present circumstances. The medical superintendent had the child admitted to tho Children's Hospital, as the Macarthy Home was only intended for cases requiring' minor treatment as convalescents. At a later-date the child' 6 removal may have been desirable. Apparently Dr. Faulke was in 6ome doubt as to tho nursing arrangements thero when he -wrote. The rules of the institution did not permit of patients in the children's ward being treated by members of the honorary staff other than those nppointed to the Children's Hospital. Dr. Faulke was surgeon on the honorary staff of tho General Hospital, and not of the Children's Hospital, which had its own honorary medical staff. A full inquiry had been made into all tho circumstances of the case, and it was found . that on August 17 tlio child's father stated ho wished to take tho child home, and as. she had not been discharged by tho hospital staff the sister in charge of the ward obtained tho signature of ono of the child's parents as a record that the parents acted on their own responsibilities, the entry in the book being: "17/8/19. Parente taking Lily Gardner home at own wish. (Signed) E. E. Gardner." That did not coincide with the statements contained in Mr. Gardner's letter to Councillor Anderson. Tho medical superintendent stated that tho child had slightly improved and was receiving every care and attention. Councillor Anderson asked tho Mayor if his statement which had appeared in (The Dominion was correct. The statement had referred to the necessity of having to take the statements of some peoplo with a "grain of salt." He would like to know to whom tho Mayor ferred.

Councillor Anderson became rather ex-1 cited and challenged Mr. M'Ewan to a direct answer. _ ' Mr. M'Ewan, beyond admitting tho truth of the statement in Tub Dominion, said ho could not answer, tho question before Mr. Anderson had concluded his speech and moved a resolution. - Councillor Anderson: You havo not tho moral courage to say who you referred to in your statement. Tho Mayor: I absolutely decline to answer your question unless you first move a resolution. Councillor Anderson went on to describe the details of the case of tho child, and finally moved that a full inquiry into the matter bo instituted. It -was seconded by Councillor Churchouse. ; Tho Mayor (Mr. M'Ewan) explained his reported statement. It was quite correct that he had said that tho statements of some people should bo taken with "a grain of salt." In the light of incidents following the investigation of other recent complaints his statement was quite warranted. In reply to a, continued demand from Councillor Anderson as to whom tho Mayor referred in his statements, Mr. M'Ewan said there was only one person to whom it could refer, and that was

the father of the child. Continuing, Mr. M'Ewan, said that

there was no evidence of the ill-treatment of tho child at the Hospital. Tho inquiry made by tho Hospital authorities had shown that. He was not, as had been suggested, afraid of an inquiry, but as far as he could see thero was no necessity for it. Tho child was now much better - than it had been when it was discharged from tho Hospital. Councillor Anderson asked if the father of tho child would be permitted to explain the position. He was present in the Council Chamber. Tho Mayor said it was hardly •necessary to have n statement from the father as thev had previously had a written statement from tho father beforo the council. Councillor Bedingfield thought that they should give the father of the child a hearing. If charges were levelled against a public institution liko the Hospital and theso charges were denied, some proof was desirable. It was decided to give the father permission to speak. Mr. Gardner (the father) said that when taken out of the Hospital on August 17 the child was in a very bad state. When she was brought along he did not recognise her. Ho desired to thko the child elsewhere in order to secure some improvement. Upon taking tho child to Dr. Eaulko that gentleman had said that tho child was dying of starvation. The child was now improving and was putting on weight, and the sores wcro healing up. Dr. Robertson, had said that tho child had been suffering from "sleeping 6ickness." Ho referred to the statement of Dr. Woodhouso as being incorrect. The Mayor; Aro you prepared to make an affidavit on that statement?

Mr. Gardner: Yes, I .am prepared to do auy Hung. Mr. Gardner went on to describo in detail tho treatment given to the child. This was the third occasion on which the child had been admitted to the Hoßpital in tho cours" of a fow weeks. Councillor 'Rodingfiold said that it wa3 not a matter for ordinary laymen like themselves *o sav whether tho case was ono for e.u Inquiry or not. If they had had a written statement ofsomequalifleJ medical practitioner thoy could then demand a full exulanatiou from tho Hospital authr...itfcs. The Mavor said they had thrashed the matter "Mit 'bnroughly. With reference to his statement, he had withheld ono part of it purposely. It was this: Dr. Hardwicke had (old him Unit if lie were Superintendent of tho Hospital it was (|iii"itionahli> whether lie wonio have, admitted the child to the Ilo>pitnl. He thought the caso was one for careful homo nursing, 110 thuuglit the mailer should drop. Councillor Brocklebouk said from Hip statements of the father it appeared thai , the parents of the child were dissativ fied with the treatment at the Hospital. If such were the case, then the matter was not one for these present to decide. They were not medical men and con hi not"themselves determine whether the. treatment given tho child was satisfactory or otherwise. After' some fi:,rthcr discussion on the matter, tho original motion that an int|iiir.v be held was put and lost, the voting 'being:—For: Councillors Cox, Churchouse, and Anderson. Against: The Mayor, Councillors Hedinglicld, Brocklebauk, Tovoy, Hay, Cook, and Kyle.