THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1881. THOSE DOCTORS AGAIN.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2194, 8 March 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1881. THOSE DOCTORS AGAIN.

We had hoped that we had heard the last of medical squabbles for some time to come, for indeed the public are utterly sick of them. But, unfortunately, at yesterday's meeting of the Board of Health, the late calm was distnrbed in a decidedly unpleasant manner. It may be that the medical atmosphere is too charged with electricity to remain long without a storm, and the antagonistic forces are so evenly balanced that the slightest cause is sure to bring the thunder and lightning and a heavy fall of medical moisture. In the present case Dr. Prins is the gentleman who, by a most injudicious display of temper, has once more stirred up the mud. We have throughout the late proceedings in which the Board of Health, the Hospital Board and the Staff have boon involved, upheld the Staff to the best of our ability. Wo have looked npon the " outs " as a disappointed faction, who, after deserting their post without a moment's notice, have felt disgusted that their places have been efficiently filled, and that the public have been perfectly satisfied with the manner in which Hospital work is at present conducted. But that is no reason why, when a leading member of the Staff allows feelings of bitterness to overcome his better judgment, that we should endeavor to back him np. Rather is the contrary the case, for all well-wishers of the gentlemen who at present serve the public so well in the Hospital wards, will be sorry that anything has been said or written calculated to injure their cause in the general estimation. On Dr. Prins' action in returning the envelopes enclosing cards for reporting infectious diseases we do not propose to comment. We presume he is the best judge of the nature of his own practice, and as he states that he is quite willing to do all in his power to assist the Board, it should certainly, we think, be inferred that he docs not imagine that eases of infections diseases are likely often to come under his notice, now that he does not visit patients at their own homes. The position he has assumed is perfectly logical and capable of comprehension, and although, as the Chairman of the Board suggests in his reply to Dr. Prins, there might arise cases in which it would be the Doctor's duty to inform the patient that he was suffering from an infectious disease, yet it is possible that in such cases Dr. Prins may consider that the practitioner who takes charge of the case afterwards is the proper person to report it. On this question, we do not propose to pass an opinion either one way or the other. Bat when we come to the second half of Dr. Prins' letter the matter is very different. Dr. Prins has gone out of his way to insult the Medical Officer of the Board of Health in a manner that cannot be considered warrantable. Ho allows his personal feelings altogether to outweight what would have been, had he been in practice, his manifest duty to the public. We may remind Dr. Prins that the late Commission was granted at the instance of the Board of Health, and that he would have had to deal with that body and not with its Medical Officer. The Board consists of gentlemen appointed to see to the public safety by, amongst other means, providing that correct returns of infectious diseases are handed in to it as occasion requires. The Board are apparently satisfied with their medical officer; that is their own look out ; the profession and the public are connected with the Board alone. If they are dissatisfied with the way in which that body carries on its duties, let them say so, and agitate to have it displaced. The Medical Officer of the Board is but a servant of the Board, and a ratepayer might juat as well refuse to pay his rates becauso he thought the rate-collector incompetent, as that a doctor should refuse to send in returns of infectious diseases because ho objects to certain actions of the Medical Officer. We cannot help feeling surprised that Dr. Prins should have gone so entirely out of his way to act as he has done. His explanation as to the naturo of his practice might well have ended the correspondence. It would have shown why he thought it w»8 of no use for him to keep tho cards. That was all that was wanted. Why go further? Why open the old sore? Why, in particular, say, " I have grave doubts if he (the Medical Officer) is in any way fitted to fill any position of responsibility." Surely it is not decent to sit in judgment on tho attainments or ability of a follow prac-

titioner in this uncalled-for mannor. Tho public, we are aware, have tho greatest confidence in Dr. Prina' professional skill. But who, it may fairly be asked, made a judge of him, that he should givo his opinion, in season and out of season. Everybody must feel sorry that he has publicly given way to feelings which cannot be considered either amiable or commendable.

MUNICIPAL MISMANAGEMENT. In what an extraordinary manner is the business of tho City Council managed! Take for instance tho complaint made by Mr. Dowdall at yesterday’s meeting of the City Council. Ho complained “of being bothered and threatened by a city official for payment of money which he had long since paid, and got a receipt for.” Cr. Thompson, whoso views on the way that business should bo conducted, appear decidedly vague, said that Mr. Dowdall might have produced his receipt, and suggested that tho Council’s employes were humbugged. Cr. Hulbert, on the other hand, showed that the present was not an isolotod instance, that the matter was a pure business one, and, as such, should bo regarded. Finally, the affair was referred to tho Departmental Committee. Now wo should much like to know why such cases should so often arise. Would tho state of things that seems to prevail in this department of the City Council offices, be allowed for an instant to happen in a private business. If it were, where would tho business be in a twelve-month? How can the public feel safe if this sort of thing goes on ? It is all very well to say that a man may produce his receipt ; but suppose he loses it—what then ? He has to pay twice over, and then the serious question arises, where has the money for the first payment gone to ? What is the good of any system of account keeping at all, if such faults are not guarded against ? It is no light matter, this. Cr. Thompson favours the happy-go-lucky system at present prevailling; so does Cr. Cuff. We fancy they must about stand alone in their opinion. What are the Departmental Committee about ? What are the auditors about ? Is the affair a matter of want of system or of carelessness ? Why, only tho other day, a man who had paid his rates was brought down from Chertsey, it was proved that he had paid, and his expenses amounted to 15s. This very day a printer and a shoeing smith were summoned, and their joint expenses amounted to the same sum. If the Council have given up keeping books, they had better publicly state so, and the public will recognise the position. If, on tho contrary, they do keep books, it is simply scandalous that the ratepayers should be worried in the manner in which so many have been of late. The expenses incurred may come out of the pockets of officials, or from the public chest—that is comparatively of little moment. But a rotten system will not long bo borne by the ratepayers generally, and the sooner the Council recognise this fact the better, the opinion of Councillors Thompson and Cuff, notwithstanding.