Action committee-Health Board Liason

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 6, Issue 282, 11 April 1989, Page 4

Action committee-Health Board Liason

I read the article in your paper dated 4 April entitled "Annex action continues" with some concern . While the Waiouru Action Committees activities are doubtless newsworthy there were two particular items in the article which I found to be at best a little strange. These were, "nurses from the Hospital could staff the Annex as and when needed". And "all this to be provided by one person seven days a week, 24 hours a day", in reference to the proposed midwife. The first of these, even considering that the already understrength staff have a primary role in taking care of the medical needs of the Military community, appears to presuppose a number of things. These being: 1/ That the Hospital will at all times have sufficient trained staff

to enable retasking at a moment's notice. 2/ That Defence will be prepared to permit reduced services by medical staff in their primary role. 3/ That Defence will be prepared to maintain, heat and clean a Wanganui flealth Board (WHB) facility against the requirements for its use. 4/ That Defence would be prepared to usurp functions within the mandate of the WHB and fund them in a time of severe financial restrictions, and 5/ That a way may be found around the health regulations which require a delineation between obstetric and general hospital facilities in order to prevent the possibility of cross infection. The second item, which suggests that the midwife would be required to work 24 hours a day, seven days a

week seems even stranger. Unless I have been misinformed there were in the order of 50 births in the Maternity Annex last year. Having judiciously applied a little simple arithmetic I find a result

which, regardless of how it is turned, fails to produce a workload of 24 hours per day, seven days per week. This is disregarding the WHB's proposal of two midwives for Waiouru. All the arguments that I have heard raised

by the Action Committee appear to be based purely on emotion and do not stand up to rational examination. It seems to me that the reality of the matter is that neither Defence nor the WHB are able to continue funding the Maternity Annex surely has been a bonus facility not enjoyed by comparable communities.

It would appear that while anger, pique and nostalgia are foremost in the minds of the members of the Action Committee it is unlikely that they will interact with Defence and the WHB in an endevour to find the best practicable solution for the community. Surely if the best interests of the community are the objectives of the Ac-

tion Committee this liason is what should be occurring. If the best interests of the community are not their objectives then perhaps it is not Defence or the WHB policy which should be examined but the motives of the Waiouru Action Committee.

P.J.

Ball