THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1882. THE ERRATIC HOSPITAL BOARD.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2423, 11 January 1882, Page 3

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1882. THE ERRATIC HOSPITAL BOARD.

Some little time ago we commented upon the tyrannical and unjust behaviour of the Hospital Board towards the late House Surgeon. On the very eve of his resignation, a report was laid before the Board by a committee in which very serious charges indeed were made against that officer. This was refuted in a straightforward letter, and being so it would have been expected that this peculiarly constituted Board would at least have either acknowledged that they were in the wrong or controverted Dr. Mickle’s statement. But they did neither one nor the other, and he was allowed to go forth with a sort of a cloud over him totally unmerited and unjust. This is one instance of their erratic dealings in matters affecting an individual, but now comes afarmore important matter, because it touches the welfare of the public. We allude to the recent election by ballot amongst the members of the Board of the Hospital visiting staff, and upon reading over the list of names it cannot, we think, but be apparent that a great injustice has been done to those who are unfortunately obliged to seek relief in the institution. Only one member of the former staff— Dr. Prins—has been retained, and there is something very peculiar about the fact that he, who is recognised as the leading operating surgeon in Canterbury, barely escaped dismissal. This, to our mind, shows pretty conclusively that the members of the Board, instead of being guided by the desire to do the best for the public good, have simply allowed private pique and the little petty jealousies which have crept into the management of the Hospital to sway them. The late staff, in two instances at least, have been j replaced by gentlemen who cannot be ( regarded as occupying the same profes- > sional standing as those into whose seats ' they have been hoisted, much, no doubt, to their own astonishment, and certainly , to that of the public generally. It may ( fairly be asked what have Messrs. Ander- 1 son and Brittin achieved to entitle them J to a place on the visiting staff of so im- , portant a public institution as the ( Hospital. One, it is true, has for some ■ time been the Jidus achates of a promi- 1 nent member of the Turnbull faction, j whilst the other declared some little time , back to serve upon the staff. These, no ] doubt, were reasons which weighed 1 heavily in their favor with some members j of the Board, but the public, who after all are most interested, have a right to know upon what grounds these gentle- 1 men, comparatively unknown, are ; thrust into this responsible position, to the exclusion of others whose experience , and position in the profession certainly i entitle them to it. Amongst others, the I energetic medical officer of health has been appointed to one of the vacancies. We have no wish to say one word against the appointment further than to remark i that, to judge from the enormous number ■ of reports of a very voluminous charac- j ter which he is called upon, by virtue of , his office as medical adviser to the Board \ of Health, to prepare, his time must hs pretty fully occupied, especially when it * is considered that he has also his private 1 practice to attend to. Surely this would , have been enough for even his restless t activity, without still further entailing upon him the labour and responsibility j which attaches to the office of a visiting ] surgeon to the Hospital. But the Board ] have gone further than this, and have * out-Heroded Herod by the dismissal—or, J to speak more correctly, non-appoint- , ment—of Dr. Wilkins, the oculist, to .

the Hospital, In this respect the public interest has been entirely set aside, for what reason we are unable to say. It is admitted by medical men and indeed is pretty generally known to all, that the physician or surgeon who devotes himself to general practice in either medicine or surgery is not, as a rule, competent to treat any except the more simple diseases of the eye, and in England, as well as on the continent of Europe, some of the ablest men in the medical profession, realising this fact, have devoted themselves entirely and

exclusively to the study of diseases of the eye. Dr. Wilkins is the one man in New Zealand who has done so, and the managers of such an institution as the Hospital should think themselves fortunate in being able to secure the services of a gentleman holding such a high position in the most difficult branch of the medical profession. During the time Dr. Wilkins was on the staff of the Hospital he did a large amount of valuable work, including several successful operations, which deserves recognition. It must not bo forgotten that the many delicate and difficult operations required to be carried out in dealing with diseases of the eye cannot be successfully undertaken by anyone, however clever in his profession otherwise, without special training, lengthened experience, and numerous opportunities of observation. We do not know which member of the staff as at present constituted, it is intended to request to undertake this very onerous and responsible portion of the work. None of the gentlemen, so far as we are aware, have ever made a speciality of diseases of the eye, and surely the Board are not going to leave the Hospital entirely deprived of the services of a skilled oculist. This is a subject in which, as wo have already pointed out, the public are deeply interested, and we trust that some pressure will be brought to bear upon this irresponsible body, in order that they may retrace their steps and repair the mischief they have done. As matters at present stand, not only will the institution suffer, but an injustice has been done to a gentleman who has rendered invaluable services to it.