The Telephone. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 25. 1883. UNJUST TREATMENT OF A DOCTOR.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 26, 25 December 1883, Page 2

The Telephone. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 25. 1883. UNJUST TREATMENT OF A DOCTOR.

It would appear that not even gentlemen o£ the tnediea! profession are exempted from unjust treatment, and that the “ powers-that-be ” do not. scruple to insult a doctor holding a highly responsible position when it

suits their purpose to do so. From a Wellington contemporary we learn that “ part of the visiting staff complained to tho Colonial Secretary that they could not co operate with Dr. Hammond in the work of the Hospital, in consequence of Dr. Hammond’s ‘ harsh treatment of the patients and they allege that the sick on that

account were unwilling to come info the Hospital for medical treatment. Dr. Hammond Laving personally seen the Colonial Secretary nnd replied to the charges, he was requested by the Hon. Mr. Dick to resign. This Dr. Hammond declined to do, on the grotiml that it would be an admission

on his part that his conduct was <pen to censure. He said the charges

brought against him were absolutely false, and he asked for an inquiry. The inquiry w.-w refused, and Dr.

Hammond’s services were dispensed with. In consequence of the action of the Colonial Secretary in dismissing Dr. Hammond, the Lady Superintendent (Mrs. F. M. Mooni) nnd six

nurses have resigned. The evidence as published is strongly in favor of Dr. Hammond.” Now, wo ask, could

a more unjust act be perpetrated than that of withholding an inquiry infolhe ciremnsfaneot? of the ease referred to ? Vo doubt, the government of the Hospital has been in a very unsatisfactory state, and, may be, Dr. Hammond's conduct has not been irreproachable; nevertheless, the British spirit of fair-play should have actuated the “Hon. Mr. Dick”

when requested to inquire into tho case. Whether Dr. Hammond "has been tne victim of a professional quarrel ” er not. we quite asiree with our contemporary that “this cn»o is simply an example of tyranny which ought not to be endured.” Probably, the “ Hon. Mr. Dick," carried away by a superabundance of zeal, con-

ceived the grand idea that he was doing his duty in a highly creditable manner ; or the poor old inadequate may have been badgered into adopting the course he took. But, be that as

it may, an act of tyranny has be«n perpetrated, — the immortal bard’s words that “ man blessed with a little brief authority plays such fantastic tricks," Ac., may bo consistently applied in this case, and we hope to see such pressure brought to bear by lovers of fair-play as will be the means of placing the “Hon. Mr. Dick" in a very unenviable p jsition.