The Globe. FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1879.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1593, 28 March 1879, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1879.

The “ Star ” in its Wednesday’s issue made a most unprovoked assault on Dr. Chilton, Resident Medical Officer of Christchurch Hospital. The article we allude to commouces by that weakest of all arguments, namely, a sneer at the youth of the gentleman attacked. The “ Star,” we presume, thinks that no man is entitled to an independent opinion until he is tottering on the brink of the grave. The theory that gray hairs are an infallible indication of a deep mind is one that has exploded, wo may inform the “Star,” for a considerable period. Writers in these latter days do not usually allude to the age of the persons whose ideas they are dissecting, but they calmly and judiciously examine their assertions and pass verdict guided not by the fact as to whether the person may be young or old, but by the fact of whether his views possess inherent value or whether they do not. Dr. Chilton is not, luckily for the Hospital, in the least decrepid. When his energies become impaired the fact will bo communicated at once to the “ Star,” and its confidence in the gentleman will, probably, be at once restored, for apparently that confidence has only been shaken by the sudden discovery that Dr, Chilton is not as old as we trust wo may some day become. But to pass from this extremely feeble display of animus to the “ Star’s” next accusation Dr. Chilton, it is assorted, had not been asked for his opinion on the management of the Hospital, It happens however that Dr. Chilton had been asked. The Chairman of the Board had personally asked him to send in his views, and very rightly too. Indeed whose opinion could be of more value ? Dr. Chilton is an efficient and painstaking official, as was always acknowledged by the late staff, who were at all times loud in his praises. Ho has had considerable experience in London hospitals, and of course has had the best moans of forming a judgment on the working of the late system here. Why, we ask, should his opinion not be of the greatest value ? Why should the absurdest of red-tapeism prevent him from giving his views on the

subject ? But, the article under review does not. in any way, endeavor to show that Dr. Chilton's views are not valuable. The only point it attempts to make is that he recommends that the number of the staff shall be five, and that the number of applications, and indeed the number of doctors left in Christchurch after the elimination of the late staff was tliis same number—five. The “ Star" insinuates that the knowledge of the number of doctors left, influenced Dr. Chilton’s letter, and indeed that the letter was a “ plant” got up by the chairman of the Hospital Board. Evil be to him who evil thinks. What possible inducement could Dr. Chilton have to act in the manner suggested ? The very fact held out as a threat at the end of the article to the purport that “ the ‘ ins’ of to-day may bo the ‘ outs’ to-morrow,” and that “ this is a world of change” would prevent any man of sense lending himself to an artifice such as that suggested by the “ Star.” Dr. Chilton has, however, nothing whatever to fear either from the Board or from any combination of disappointed medicos. He has been appointed by the Colonial Secretary for a certain period, and as long as ho does his duty at the Hospital he is not removable by the local powers. It is easy to impute motives. A scandal monger may easily fasten on a small coincidence and endeavor to tarnish the brightest reputation. The success of such attempts are, however, luckily not always commensurate with the acidity of the attack. Wo may inform the “Star” of certain facts which do not appear to have come -within its ken. In nearly all the Loudon Hospitals, possessing as they do on an average, 350 to 800 beds, the staff consists of four physicians, four surgeons and an ophthalmic surgeon. This is the staff for very large hospitals. The average number of bods in the Christhurch hospital is 90, a number only a fourth of the lowest number mentioned above. In London there are an unlimited supply of doctors eager to be placed on the Hospital staffs. But it has been found that a number of doctors disproportionate to the number of patients is not conducive to the wellbeing of any hospital, The arguments advanced in Dr. Chilton’s letter to the Board are perfectly sound. The only question is whether, instead of mentioning five as the proper number of doctors for this hospital he should not have fixed on a still smaller number. Dr. Turnbull’s argument lias always been that a large staff is necessary for the Christchurch Hospital to meet the requirements of the Medical School. Surely a veteran, such as Dr. Turnbull, must bo aware of the well known fact that in London hospitals lecturers in medicine do not necessarily have beds in hospitals. The Medical Schools are entirely disassociated from the hospitals, and it is through courtesy and arrangement alone that students are allowed to attend hospital practice. When the staff here was on its old footing each doctor had, on an average, ten beds to look after. In London hospitals each doctor has between forty and eighty. The absurdity of the late system here is apparent when we find that Dr. Turnbull, himself—the Dean of the medical faculty, whatever that may mean —has never had a single patient within the Hospital walls since the present resident officer has been in Christchurch, As far as the real work in the Hospital was concerned, he stood “ the shadow of a name.” The only other point to* be noticed in Wednesday’s article is the implied suggestion that the quality of the present staff is is not equal to that of the late one. This, of course, is a matter of opinion. Perhaps if the “ Star ” would publish side by side the degrees and qualifications of the late and of the present staffs, the public might bo better able to judge During the struggle between the Board and the late staff we confess that our sympathies wore entirely on the side of the Staff. The Board —which, be it remembered, is a mere stop-gap Board — acted, we consider, in an arbitrary and uncorteous manner. But a paper taking up the cudgels for the late stiff should not use, as sole arguments, abuse of the present staff and imputation of low motives to the Chairman of the Board, and above all it should not malignantly attack an efficient officer on whoso fair fame no speck whatever rests.