NAPIER DOCTORS FINED

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 83, 31 December 1937, Page 4

NAPIER DOCTORS FINED

Issuing of Death Certificates by Drs. Berry and Foley B.M.A. COUNCIL CENSURE Fines of £50 and £25 respectively have been imposed upon Dr. J. Alan Berry, a member of the honorary medical staff of the Napier Hospital and a former member of the Hawke's Bay Hospital Board, and Dr. J. D- Foley, medical superlntendent of the N. pier Hospital, by the New Zealand Medical Council. Thjs action arises out of the fihdings of the Royal Commission which investigated in June certain aspects of the administration of the Napier Hospital. The flnes were both related to the issuing of a certificate of the cause of death of a child who died at the Napier Hospital. According to the latest issue of the New Zealand Medical Journal, the. official organ of the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association, the charges brought against Dr. Berry at the Medical Council were as follow:(1) That by subjecting the child in the Napier Public Hospital in 1936 to pyrotherapeutic treatment, which under the conditicns which existed was of an experimental character, you gave an unwarranted and dangerous course of treatment. (2) That you connived at, or acquiesced in, administering pyrotherapeutic treatment to certain other children, being patients of Dr. White, in the Napier Public Hospital in 1936, without informing Dr. Whyte. that such treatment was being given. (3) That you wrongly and imprqper ly influenced the coroner against an inquiry into the cause of the death of (child previously referred to). (4) That you wrongfully and improperly influenced the medical superintendent of the Napier Hospital into issuing a certificate of death, which, as you well knew, failed to disclose tha true cause of death of . (child previously referred to), or alternatively, you allowed the medical superiptendent of the same hospital to Issue such a death certificate. (5) That while you were a member of the Napier Public Hospital your personal relations with certain of the nurses in the said hospital were of so familiar and intimate a nature as to bring the profession to which you belong into disrepute and seriously to prejudice the discipline and good con duct of the said hospital. Dr, Berry was represented at thc hearing by counsel. Council's Finding, The chairman, in announcing the findmgs of the council, said that they had found that charges 2 and 5 definitely not proven, "to the satisfaction of the council." The report of the Medical Councl* goes on: — "With regard to charge No. 1, the council is of the opinion that while grave impropriety has not been established against you, we do eonsider that you entered on a very ill-advised course of conduct. While not deeming you guilty of grave impropriety In this connection, the council wishes to record its very definite disapprobation of your precedure "Concerning charge No. 3, the council has not found that proved to its satisfaction. The same remarks apply to charge No. 5. "Coming to charge No. 4, the council has found that you did knowingly allow the medical superintendent of the hospital to issue a certificate that failed to disclose the true cause of the death of (child previously referred to), "The council takes a very serious view of the matter in view of your position in Napier and the hospital. You are regarded as a senior man of practically consultlng rank with administrative experience and knowledge. The council feels that your action in this respect does amount to grave impropriety, and it has decided that the penalty be £50. You have the right, of course, to appeal against the decision if you wish," Charge Against Dr. Foley. The charge against Dr. Foley read as follows: — •That on September 10, 1936, you supplied a certificate of the cause of death in respect to (child previously referred to) in which you knowingly omitted to state the full and precise causes of death." , In announcing the council's verdict, the chairman stated that, "the charge was considered proved. In this case the council is forced to the conclusion that you did not exercise the necessary care and conscientiOusness in your attitude to the coroner, whom you knov, to be a layman, or in the actual filling in of the certificate. "With its knowledge of medical men, the council cannot believe otherwise than that you knew that the cause inserted by you under (b) was not the true preceding factor in the death of the child. Therefore, it should notfhave been put in the certificate, certainly not in that position." Dr. Foley was ordered to pay the Government a fine of £25. "You have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court," the ]udgment added. Dr. Foley was not represented by counsel.