ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 545, 30 January 1878, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

THE OAMARU HOSPTTAL. TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING MAIL. Sir, —There is a leader in this morning's issue of your contemporary, the writer of which is well posted up in the 'pros and cons of the various subjects most likely to be discussed this evening at our annual Hospital meeting. I am sure he is well up in the subject. I believe he knows all about it—a deal more than some of us do—but surely he is in error when lie says we are following the lead of Timaru, for he must know that the question which is to come up tonight is one that has smouldered for at least two years, and lias all but broken into flames on at least two occasions. I think he knows this. I think he is not a "new chum " the writer of this said article. Don't you think lie (the writer of the leader) is a little roug'i upon lis (the subscribers to the Hospital) in giving us such a wipe about our Darwinian descent, unless "he be " Monboddo"—a rather good name, by the way—or Darwin himself? However, wo must leavo that till tonight. I for one intend carefully to watch which subscribers are sheep and which are goats in hopes of finding our who is the bell-wethe l ' who, in this particular instance, is leading these Oamaru lambs—l was going to say monkeys, but then I have become a little fuddled between Darwin's theory and the bellwether.—Yours, till we meet, A Darwinian Monkey. Oamaru, 30th January, 1878.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING MAIL. Sir, —I perceive that the annual meeting for regulating the affairs of the Hospital takes place in a day or two, therefore I deem it well to ask the Editor of the Mail to advocate a change of system for that institution, if his better judgment and knowledge approve of having a change take place. I ask you, Mr. Editor, kindly to give us your views on the following questions, enlarging on the the subject, and placing (as we know you can) the whole case in a clear light, and suggesting the best course to pursue. Would it be well that the medical practitioners of Oamaru should have the right of sending their consenting patients to the Hospital and treating them there, each one attending to his own patients, and becoming so far responsible to the Hospital Committee 1 If the Hospital be so opened to all the Doctors, would not the effect be to render the Hospital more serviceable to the public at large? and would nut a generous public become more ready to subscribe when they see the numbers of the sick that avail themselves of the Hospital increasing, inasmuch as they know that the expenses increase proportionately, and that the claims of the Hospital would be then stronger than at present, where the sick and poor cannot be and are not efficiently attended to for want of proper accommodation in their own houses? Ought we, the generous public, refuse the generous offer of those doctors who tender their services free of charge, and give Ll5O per annum for the services of one gentleman who would not work if not paid ? Is there any difficuliy in working the Hospital with a medical staff of three or four doctors, when each doctor is responsible for his own patients, and the chief warder keeps a separate account of the medical comforts used under the orders of each doctor for his patients ? Would it not tend to the usefulness of the Hospital to increase the number of nurses and pay them with that Ll5O, now being given to one doctor for services that others are willing to perform free of charge ? Will not the Committee have as much control over the Hospital with several doctors as with only one ? And does not yonr knowledge of hospitals elsewhere warrant you in saying that the Hospital will be more serviceable under the system now sought to be established than under the existing one ?—Respectfully asking your views on the subject, I am, sir, A Subscriber to the Hospital. Oamaru, 29th January.