THE BRYCE CASE

Gisborne Times, Volume LXI, Issue 9849, 30 October 1924, Page 5

THE BRYCE CASE

INTERESTING HOSPITAL COMPLAINT.

A VEXED PROBLEM

WELL-TO-DO AND PUBLIC HOSPITALS.

PALAIERSTON N., Oct. 29

‘To-day saw the opening of the 'Commission of -Inquiry into what has come to be known as the Bryce case, when Mr E. Page, S.M., sat for the purpose of inquiring into, the treatment accorded Miss Jessie Bryce in : connection with her admission to Palmerston North Hospital in June 1923.

Mr Taylor, for Mr J. J. Bryce, father of the patient concerned, explained that complainant was not responsible for the delay occasioned in the opening of the investigation. Mi ss_ Bryce liad been admitted to the public hospital on a signed order from Dr.-Cameron of Feilding. It was the wish of the parents that she should go to the public hospital, Mrs Bryce considering that better treatment could be secured there, because of tho better equipment, while Air Bryco insisted on such a course because he was opposed to drafting by the medical profession of patients to whatever instituions the thought desirable. Prior to the girl going into tho hospital, Dr. E. C. Barnett, a member of the honorary staff had objected to her admission, though ho declined to furnish objections in writing. The girl was admitted but, later, was discharged though very ill and unable to walk and was removed to Feilding. On the following morning she was operated oil in a private hospital for appendicitis. About ten days later comolications developed and Miss Bryce was ill for many months as a result. “It is hoped” said counsel, “that something will be done to stop the present system of drafting, for it is possiblo for grave wrongs to take place if a medical man can determine who is to go to a private and who to a public hospital. When a patient is admitted then the proper treatment should be administered. No member of the staff should be able to say: ‘You have no right here.’ There is room for 'graves, abuse if the present system is to bo "permitted without some step towards a remedy, and it may result in impaling a "patient’s health. A callous, refusal to operate may even result in the death of some member of the community. Is a medical superintendent helpless if a member of «he honorarys staff says ‘Hands off!” The action of the Hospitals Board in refusing to grant an inquiry did not inspire public confidence. Air Bryce took the matter to the Department of Health and later, the question was taken up hv the Kiwitea County Council and this inquiry was the result. In giving evidence, Jessie Bryce described her admission to the hospital. She was admitted on Juno 9, 1923, and discharged three days later without an operation, which she bad been told by Dr. Cameron was essential. Dr. Barnett had seen her three days and suggested digestive trouble. V itness had no complaints of the treatment accorded her at the hospital, only in respect of Dr. Barnett and the operation. Her mother had informed her that Dr. Barnett was not going to operate and there was no use witness staying. In his evidence, John Joseph Bryce stated that, when he approached Dr. Barnett for the admission order, the latter demurred. After her admission on Dr. Cameron’s order he was unaware of any intention to have the girl removed from tho institution. V> itr.ess then detailed the prolonged negotiations with the Hospital BcarcT and the Health Department. Witness declared that the hospital belonged, to the people and all have a right to use it. ft was built with public funds and maintained hv wlnit he would call a class tax. The man on the land paid the rates towards it and, in addition, a subsidy came out of the funds to which the same ratepayer contributed largely.

Emily Jessie Bryce, mother of the girl, described the removal of the girl from the hospital and her dissatisfaction when told by Dr. Barnett that an operation was unnecessary. Jas. Neil Fraser, secretary of the Board at that time, also gave evidence. He denied that the reason adduced in the letter written by witness in wlrch lie stated that if the Board reprimanded Dr. Barnett it would be wtheut. an honorary staff as other members of the honorary staff bad expressed confidence in Dr. Bar-nett-—nvas the real reason why the Board had reviewed tho case in Mr Bryce’s absence. Witness did not explain the absence of the clause in the resolution passed by the Board as forwarded to Mr Bryce, stating that if the latter was l.ot satisfied, he could come before tho committee of the Board. He was unable to say whether lie was instructed to omit that portion of the resolution. James H. Stevens, of Palmerston North cousin of Mrs Bryce, gave evidence that Dr. Barnett asked him if they were taking Miss Bryce away and witness replied hi the afhmative, adding that he understood an operation was unnecessary. Dr. Barnett had replied: “An operal'.otwis neccsstry and that urgently.” Witness asked: “\vliv .don’t you cpoirte?” and was reminded that he must remember that the staff gave its services free. The doctor then vent aw a v bundling. W itness insisted, under cross-examination by counsel, that his version of the .interview WSis correct. . T tt Evidence was also given by J. tl. Vincent, a member of the Hospital Board, and Dr. G. Plnllipp, of Feilding. Dr. Phillipps said the finances of patients sometimes affected his attitude in granting, or refusing a certificate of admission to an hosinquiry was then adjourned till to-morrow morning.—P A.