The Globe. SATURDAY, MAY 24, 1879.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1641, 24 May 1879, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, MAY 24, 1879.

The exclusion of tho late Hospital Staff from tho walls of the Hospital has caused them to fall into an atra-bilious state lamentable to contemplate. Unfortunately for themselves they are not all so happily situated as their chief, Dr. Turnhull, That gentleman, besides being generalissimo of tho malcontents and posing as a species of medical dodo by holding tho post of “ Doan of tho Medical Faculty,” has a seat on the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board. We pass over the fact that he has now virtually no right on that Board, in that ho was placed on it by the Board’s request as Chairman of the then Medical Staff, in order that the Board might, on occasions, obtain tho views of the Staff, and that consequently when tho late Staff retired, Dr. Turnbull should, by all rules of decency, have retired as well, and given place to tho head of tho present Staff. Wo will pass over this fact because wo merely wish to show what exceptional advantages are possessed by Dr. Turnbull over tho remainder of the late Staff. Possessing a seat on tho Board, ho has a means, by showing intense personal bias, and by generally obstructing tho business which ho ought to facilitate, of easing his feelings. Tho rest of tho late staff, however, are not so well off as their leader. They have no legitimate means of lotting off steam when rendered irritable by tho fact that things are getting on extremely well at the Hospital without them. Hence, in conjunction with their chief, they have hit upon the notable device of inspiring editorial utterances, and the latest result of this peculiar method of warfare is to he found in two articles appearing in Thursday’s and yesterday’s issue of our evening contemporary. We will consider Thursday’s article first. It is a peculiar and venomous production, basing its main complaint on the same old story of tho youth of the Resident Surgeon of tho Hospital. This lamentable fact tho late Staff apparently cannot got over. Because ho was not employed fivo-and-twonty years ago in pouring coloured mixtures down the throats of tho early settlers ho is, with the finest irony, dubbed “a singularly experienced young person.” But when the crushing statement that Dr. Chilton is not tottering on tho brink of the grave is eliminated, what remains ? Just three points. Point number one. Dr. Chilton complained of the matron, and our stellar-medico-editorial sympathies are with that lady because we once were young. Did over one hear such an extraordinary argument being used before in a public journal. Because in the remote past we were gay young bucks, therefore any verdict we may pass on a case where one of the weaker sex is concerned is to be based on a sympathetic and not a judicial basis. The merits of this case are not touched on at all; suffice it to say the matron is a woman, and the late Staff have been, in the remote past, young. Who could have suspected that venerable body of possessing such emotional feelings ? Next take point number two. Dr Chilton did not get on well with tho late Dr. Mark, and we (the “ Star ”) cannot go into the merits of the case, because tho ground is too delicate. Quite true, the ground is, indeed, too delicate, and it is only surprising that it was ever touched upon at all. Point number three. Dr. Chilton objected to the removal of a corpse from tho Hospital by the Coroner, and our sympathies are with the latter, because ho is one of the old identity. Having shed a passing tear over Dr. Coward, as an old identity, tho writer unwisely leaves the emotional platform, and begins to talk law —and such law. Ho practically says that the Coroner’s jurisdiction is without control His view is entirely rotten in law, and completely at variance with everything that common sense must suggest. True, tho Coroner’s Court is very ancient, but for that very reason its functions arc limited. It is tho first time that we have heard it assorted that antiquity gives freedom. The contrary is invariably the case. The Coroner certainly may, as the article states, order the burial of a body, or he may order it up again; he may certainly order its removal from place to place, and it is true that human remains have been known to he moved over great distances. But all this is not to the point at all. When such things are done they are done with an object and under certain specially defined powers. The article implies that tho coroner might have removed Breen’s body to any conceivable place—to tho West Coast for instance. The idea is perfectly preposterous. The coroner’s duties are as clearly parked out by statute as are the duties of any other official. Both English aud colouial authorities agroo that tho coroner has no option in the matter. If an iuquest is to bo held at all it is self-evident that the body should bo moved as little aa possible. It matters not one straw whether the origin of the Coroner’s Court lies during the days of the Saxon Heptarchy or whether the Court is a comparatively moderu creation. Thr, duties of the coroner are sharply defined by statute, and if he is worthy of tho position he holds, by that statute ho must abide or he constitutes himself a law for himself aud endangers the public safety. If a coroner is beyond the law, the sooner the Legislature sees to it the bettor. But ho is not the irresponsible individual that the “ Star” ridiculously asserts him to ho. He has no more right to act at variance with tho clearly defined essence of tho law at tho request of private individuals than the iudgs has to modify his sentence in

accordance with a petition presented by the relatives of a prisoner. In Breen’s case the coroner travelled absolutely outside his jurisdiction. The view taken by the article is so completely absurd on the face of it, and so clearly one-sided in its personalities, that wo can only wonder that any journal could consent to put it forward. If the medical views hold by the late staff are not sounder than the law propounded in the article, their patients are to bo pitied. Lot us now pass to last night’s article. The writer of this effusion, after a prelimininary growl apropos of nothing in particular, proceeds to discuss the report of the Resident Surgeon relative to the securing of an efficient staff of nurses for the Hospital. “ Whence comes this burning desire for change ? What is the motive underlying this extraordinary report?” asks the article. “It seems to us,” it proceeds, “ there can bo but one conclusion and it is unmistakcablo. The object clearly aimed at is to get rid of the present matron, whom ho (the Resident Surgeon) has already sought to injure.” Why, the matron has nothing whatsoever to do with the nurses. Her duties are confined solely to keeping the linen and looking after two housemaids, as can be seen by anyone who obtains a copy of the Hospital rules. The writer of the article has not the remotest idea who the matron is. Ho says her name is Mrs. Kiudleysides, that she has been sixteen years in the Hospital, and that “ during her long career of management she has succeeded in giving great satisfaction to the Staff, to the patients, and to those who have had control of the institution.” As it happens, the matron is the wife of the dispenser, and has been five years in the Hospital; Mrs. Kindleysides is one of the head nurses; the matron has never had any opportunity of giving satisfaction to the Staff, because she has never had anything to do with them, and she has never had any opportunity of giving satisfaction to the patients, because she never enters a ward except to give linen to the nurses. “Surely,” proceeds the “ Star,” “ if over there was a case in which kindly consideration should bo shown to an old and faithful servant it was the case of Mrs. Kindleysides. . . . We feel sure the people of Christchurch will not stand idly by and behold a servant of sixteen years’ standing, who is also a woman, turned from the doors of their institution through any scheming or machination, however skilfully it is performed.” This is getting absolutely ludicrous. Nobody wishes to dismiss Mrs, Kindleysides. She is a very highly valued servant, and, as one of the head nurses her loss would bo very much felt. One more point and wo have done with yesterday’s article. The “ Star ” descends so low as to make a villainous suggestion that the Resident Surgeon is desirous of obtaining a superior person to take in hand the management of the nurses, because he “is thinking of the charming society he is apparently ambitious to have near him.” To call this suggestion villainous is treating it with extreme mildness. We should very much like to use a much stronger term, but perhaps, on the whole, it is bettor to leave the conduct of our evening contemporary to be judged by public opinion. The Resident Surgeon merely asked for the appointment of a superior person really qualified to take the responsibity of training nurses. It is evident that the bettor educated she is, both generally and professionally, the better suited she will be for the superintondanco of a school of nurses. Persons holding similar appointaro called “Lady Superintendents” in London Hospitals and also in some Australian ones.

lu all this medical squabble, of which, by tho way, tho public aro getting heartily sick, it must bo remembered that the Resident Surgeon of tho Hospital has been merely made a scape-goat on which the late Staff are venting their spleen. There were extremely well satisfied with him when they were in power, and in Thursday’s article is to bo found tho first suggestion that he was profoundly distasteful to them when they were in office. The late Staff are in reality aiming their shafts at the present Staff, at that body which filled up the vacancies caused by their defection. Tho late Staff imagined that, by resigning, they had placed tho Board in a hopeless fix. At the time there was no doubt but that much could be said in the late Staff’s favor, and public opiuion wont with them, for the Board, without doubt, acted discourteously towards them. But tho proceedings of the late Staff since their loss of power have been of such a nature as completely to alienate public sympathy for them. They have taken upon themselves to endeavor to crush a useful public servant, because they have not dared to attack the practitioners against whom their grudge iu reality lies; they have seized upon tho fact that this public servant is young and, like most young men worth their salt, rash, to upbraid him for his youth aud seize on every little opportunity that his inexperience may afford, and they have used their own social position and lengthened residence in Christchurch as a weapon of offence. Professional jealousy can carry men no further. The late Staff had a perfect right to boldly attack tho present Staff, using sound arguments iu support of their views. But tho hole-aud-coruer work that has been going on lately is pitiful iu tho extreme. One thing, however, is satisfactory. Tho world goes round as usual, aud hospital affairs aro flourishing. Much good is being done aud more is likely to bo done. The school for nurses will bo of groat value, not only to the Hospital, hut to the colony at largo. The public aro well satisfied that, uuder the supervision of tho present Hospital Board aud Staff, their interests will. Dr Turnbull's obstructivouoss notwithstanding, bo well seen to. Iu reality the only sufferers are the members of the late staff themselves. They present tho sorry spectacle of atrabilious ox-officials in search of employment.