HOSPITAL ENQUIRY.

Hokitika Guardian, 30 October 1924, Page 1

HOSPITAL ENQUIRY.

THE EVIDENCE. [by TELECIIArn —PER I’iIESS ASSOCIATION.] PALMERSTON NORTH, Oct, 2D. To-day saw the opening of a Commission of Inquiry into what lias come to lie known as the Bryce ease, when Mr E. Page, S.M., sat at Palmerston North Courthouse for the purpose of inquiring into the treatment accorded Miss Jessie Bryce in connection with her admission to Ralinerstou North Ilispital in June, 1923. Mr Taylor, for J. J. Bryce, father of the patient concerned, explained the complainant was not responsible lor the delay occasioned in opening the investigation. Miss Bryce had been admitted to the Public Hospital on a signed order from Dr Cameron, or Fielding. It was the wish of the parents that site should go to the Public Hospital, Mrs Bryce considering hotter treatment would he secured there because of the hotter equipment, while Mr Rrvee insisted on such a course because lie was opposed to the drafting by the medical profession of patients into whatever institutions they thought desirable. Prior to the girl’s going into the hospital, Dr E. C. Harnett, a member of the lionora.v stall, had objected to the admission, though lie declined to furnish the objections in writing. The girl was admitted, hut later was discharged, though very ill and unable to walk, and was removed to Fielding on the following morning, and operated on in a private hospital for appendicitis. About ten days laltr complications developed, and Miss Rrvee was ill for many months as Hie result. “It is honed,” said counsel, “that something will he done to stop the present system of drafting, for it is possible for grave wrongs to take ■place if )i medical man can determine who is to go to a private, and who to a public hospital. When a patient is admitted then proper treatment should he nilminslcred. No member of the stall' should he able to say: ‘You have no light here!’ There is room for grave abuse il the present system is to he permitted, without some steps towards a remedy; and it may result in the impairing of the health of the patients. A callous refusal to operate may even result in the death of some member of the community. Is the Medical Superintendent helpless, if a member of the honorary stall' says: ‘Hands off!’ The action of the Hospital Hoard in refusing to grant an inqury did not inspire public confidence, after the matter had been determined hv the Hoard, after it had promised to hear Air Hrvee. The latter took the matter to the De-

partment of Health. Later the question was taken up by the Kiwitca County Council and this inqury was the result.” In giving evidence, Jessie. Bryce described her admission to the hospital. She was admitted on June 9, 1923, and discharged three (lays later, without. an operation, which she had been told by Dr Cameron was essential. Dr Burnett bad seen her on the three days, and suggested digestive trouble. Witness bad no complaints as to tlie treatment acordcd her in the hospital i nlv in respect to Dr Harnett and tin- operation. Her mother informed her that Dr Harnett was not going lo opciale, anil that there was no use in witness staying. In his evidence, .lolni .lescpli Bryce, staled that, when lie approached Dr Harnett for an .-i.linision older. The lilt tie ,1.1-niiiiic.l. Alter her admission, on Dr Cameron’s order, lie was iliiawaie of any intention to have the girl removed from the institution. Witness then detailed his prolonged negnl ialions with the Hospital Hoard anfi the Health Department. Witness ileelarcil : “The Hospital belongs to the people, and all have the right to ~,v it. It’ was built with public 1 mills, and is maintained by us.” U was what he would call class tax. The man on the land paid rates t»warils it. and, in addition the subsidy came out of the funds to which Hie same ratepayer contributed largely. F.milv Jessie Hr.vce mother of the gill, described the removal of the girl’ from the Hospital, and her dissatisfaction when told by D; Barnett an operation was unnecessary .lames Neil Fraser. Secretary of the Board at that time, also gave evidence. He denied Hint tlie reason adduced in the letter written by witness (in which he stated that if tbe Board reprimanded Dr Barnett, it would lie without an honorary -staff, as Hu- other members ot Hie honorary stair bad expressed confidence in Dr RarnelO was the real reason why the Board had reviewed tlie case ill Mr Bryce’s absence. Witness could not CXl, lain the absence of a clause in a

i('solution passed by the Honid, as 01 warded to Mr Bryce, stating that, if the latter was not satisfied, he could come before the ' Committee of Hie Hoard. He was unable to say whether he was instructed to omit that portion of the resolution. .lames IL Stevens, of Palmerston North, cousin of Mrs Bryce, gave e\ idence that Dr Barnett asked him i they wore taking Miss Bryce away, and witness replied in the affirmative, ad,11,10 that he understood an operation was unnecessary. Dr Harnett had 10plied: “An operation is necessary and that urgently.” Witness asked: “Why don’t you operate?” lie was reminded that lie must remember that the staff gave its services free. The doctor then went away laughing.

"Witness insisted under cross examinatioti 1»v counsel, that his vcision of the interview was correct. Evidence was given also hy .T. TT. Vincent, a niemher of the Hospital Hoard, and Hr (!. Phillip, of Kidding. l)r Phillip said the finance of the patients sometimes affected his attitude in granting or ret using a certificate of admission to the Hospital. The inquiry was then adjourned fill to-morrow morning.