THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1881. THE PHARASAICAL "TIMES."

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2255, 20 May 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1881. THE PHARASAICAL "TIMES."

Oue very venerable and respected contemporary, the "Lyttelton Times," has been endeavouring recently to sustain the character it has won for itself throughout the colony of the Pharisee of journalism. That it has been successful goes, as the French have it, without saying. Tears of practice have made our contemporary peifoct in this role, and it would be well if it contented itself with a line of conduct which sits well on it, and in which, to a great extent, perfection has been attained. But this morning the " Times" attempts a now line, viz., the seemingly candid mentor. The subject selected for operation is the Chairman of the Hospital Board, and no doubt the "friendly" spirit in which the article is written would have had a very great effect upon that gentleman but for one very important fact. That fact is that the article—we will not say wilfully—entirely and completely mis-states the case as between the Board of Health and the Hospital Board, not only in one instance but in the two quoted therein. The first point taken is with reference to an alleged breach of duty on the part of the officers of the Hospital in not reporting a certain case of infectious disease. The Medical Officor of Health, in his report, stated that a case of diphtheria had been recoivod into the Hospital, but that no report had been made. Our very virtuous contemporary passes over with but slight roforonce—most conveniently for its purpose—tho letter of tho House Sugoon road only at tho last mooting of tho Hospital Board on Wednesday. Thorein it was stated most positively that not one single caso of diphtheria had been admitted into tho Hospital during tho tenure of oilico of tho presont house surgoon. Nay moro, it is stated that tho patient whon admitted was suffering from another disoaso altogotlior, which was tho causo of death, and so stated on the cortiGcate. But tho " Timos" simply says Dr. Meiklo made his explanation, totally ignoring the fact that tho explanation ontiroly and complotoly controvorts tho assumptions upon which tho article is foundod. Of courso it would not snit our frionds' book to tell tho truth. Their sido must bo uphold at all costs; and, thoroforo, with a strong infusion of suppressio vcri, tho article ondonvonrsto attack tho Chairman of tho Board bocauso ho did not kow-tow to tho modical ofiicor —tho groat Panjandrum of tho " Lyttelton Timos." Just one word as to tho other caso roforrod to—that in which Dr. Deamor was concerned. As in tho caso of the House Surgeon's lottor, so in this also, tho " Timos," without deliberately stating what is not tho fact, yot puts tho matter in a way that tends to lead the pnblic to beliovo that Dr. Deamor had broken tho law, but had explained. Why did not tho "Times," if referonco to this case was necessary, state the whole truth and not half of it? Tho facts were that Dr. Deamor duly reported tho case on one of tho cards provided for that purpose, and forwarded it to tho Board. Why could not the " Times" say this when speaking of the matter ?—because it would not suit them to let it bo knowm that this paragon of zeal, this disinterested champion of sanitary reform, had made a charge against a brother practitioner without first ascertaining that there wero good grounds for so doing. Then, again, with regard to tho mare's nost discovered by Dr. Nedwill as to fever patients. The Medical Officer, whose zeal is so much to be commended, did not know, as certainly was his duty, that fever patients wero isolated at tho Hospital. A simple enquiry or request for information would have enabled him to become acquainted with this fact, and probably saved a good doal of unnecessary trouble. Wo fully recognise the very great services that Dr. Nedwill has rendered to tho cause of sanitary reform in many ways. Ho has by his watchfulness and zeal brought about a very much improved state of things so far as tho public health is concerned. But there aro such things asover-zealand unduo bias in certain directions, which, in tho best of officers, aro serious faults. Two out of tho three cases referred to have been shown to bo mythical, or at any rate such as a little enquiry before hastily jumping at Conclusion would havo shown were not nocossary to bo referrod to in a public report. Wo trust that tho Health Officer will, in future, temper his zeal with discretion, and that our contemporary tho " Timos " will, in commenting on public matters, consider it necessary to tell tho whole truth, and not baso its articles on a structure of a littlo truth and a groat deal of fiction If it does

not, then Dr. Nedwill, like many others whoso cause the " Times " has at various periods espoused, will have good cause to say, " Save me from my friend.*'