The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING GISBORNE, DEC. 4, 1906.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1949, 4 December 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING GISBORNE, DEC. 4, 1906.

It may be that the resolution oti the Hospital Trustees, after enquiring very cursorily into the allegations laid against tho Hospital Surgeon and inferentially against the Matron, was justified by the evidence adduced at yesterday’s meeting; but we do not hesitate to say that the facts brought to light demanded another resolution, and that in the direction of probing the matter still further. It is abundantly plain that thero is something beneath the surface that has not been 1 fully revealed by the ovidence, and although we do not go tho longth of suggesting that tho resolution arrived at by the Board was not justified by the evidonco tendered, it is self-evident that the enquiry has not gone as far as it ought to go. Two things stand out prominently in this connection, first, tho serious allegations of the medical officer and his incomplete story of the details of the case under enquiry, and, second, tho scarcely less serioys fact brought to light by the evidence of one of the nurses that the medical officer’s directions aro sometimes varied by tho matron on her own responsibility. Before dealing with these two things in the order of mention, let us say that wo do not approvo of the method of the enquiry which permitted a witness to bo contradicted by the matron in a way that savoured 0 f intimidation and consequent suppression of the truth, and we think also th.at the Board in deciding to deal with a matter such as this, which involved technicalities of surgical practice with which it is not expected to be familiar, should have fortified itself with independent medical testimony or employed a medical practitioner unconnected with the matter to sit on the enquiry in aji advisory capacity. If these precautions had been taken the whole matter would now be in a much moro satisfactory position. First, then as to the medical officer’s refutation of the allegations contained in the fetter, we have a general denial of any u'Cirsonal responsibility for the sad result of the treatment; but tacked on to that denial there is a somewhat vague history .of the case, which, possibly owing to its incompleteness of detail, will not bear strict analysis, and

in also a distinct reflection upon other medical men. With tho latter phuso of tho story wo have nothing to do except so far as it boars upon tho caao itself and tho treatment adopted which is nllogod to have caused doath. In tho first instance Dr Morrison tolls us that ho oporatod for appondicitis, and found that part of tho bowel was gangrenous with a groat doal of suppuration which noodod to bo drained off by a tubo put down to tiio incised colon. A fow days after tho operation ho removed tho tube which loft behind a sinus, and which continued to dis-

charge for sorao time ; but ho does not say how long tho discharge was permitted to continue, causing as it did fovorish paroxysms as indicatod by frequent rises of temporaturo, and this omission is important. Nor does bo say whothor ho thought of satisfying himself whothor tho continued sup puration was duo to tho siuua or to tho uuimproved gangronous condition of tho colon, and that omission is equally important, for if duo to tho factor the second operation which ho condemns was a vital necessity, and yot ho tells the Board that if tho second operation had not boon done tho girl might have boon alive to-day. We must confess our inability to follow tliia line of reasoning ; but assuming it to bo correct, he offers as an excuse for consenting to the fatal step tho importunity of tho girl’s sistor, and the parent’s own desire to get out of the hospital—a la.no and impotont excuse assuredly. Now in such cases tima is tho essence of success, and therefore wo ought to bo informed how long the suppuration was permitted to continue without clearly dofiaing its source before tlio second operation was decided upon; but those aro points which a further enquiry ought to establish one way or the other. Then as to tho third operation which the medical officer conducted on his own account, we want also to know its nature and history, and whether or not it or its unnecessary and avoidable sequel, septic peritonitis, was the direct cause of death. As the matter now stands, the evidence is incomplete and unsatisfactory, Dr Morrison objects to interference with his treatment, and cites a case whero he advised amputation of a leg but gave way to other opinion and scraped the bone, and ho significantly adds that the patient is now dead. We believe that is true so far as it goes ; but it ought to be stated that the patient in question died of pleurisy, and the interference in that case had no relation to tho cause of death, nor has it been shown that it is so in the present case. There is more than one. medical gentleman directly concerned in these indirect accusations, and common justice demands that they should have the opportunity of answering them and revealing the truth whoever may be to blame. The welfare of human life also demands tho truth, and that we cannot have until all sides of the story are told, and at present wo have but one incomplete one upon which no satisfactory conclusion can be based. Indeed the question demands something more, for it affects the constitution of tho hospital management. In the face of what has transpired any medical man called in to assist at operations may have the blame of any non-sueeess of those operations cast upon his shoulders if he morely advises a certain course of action while the hospital surgeon performs the operation and takes no risk upon himself even though he bungled his work, and what practitioner will risk that position for a small fee to administer an anresthotic and consult ? Tho position is too unsatisfactory to be permitted to continue, and when in addition we know that tho matron is in tho habit of varying the medical officer’s treatment, upon whom can the responsibility for fatalities be cast? The only permissible answer is, anybody or nobody. Wo have already referred to the necessity for a proper sterilising plant in the operating room instead of the insufficient tin kettle thing that does duty there at present, and to the want of that might possibly bo traced the real cause of death in the esse under notice. But however that may be, the Board will not be justified in letting tho matters rest where they are, and the scope of any further enquiry should embrace the whole rauge of management, attendance, and equipment.