THE STRATFORD HOSPITAL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXX, Issue 66, 22 June 1916, Page 5

THE STRATFORD HOSPITAL.

DR. PACET PERSISTS.

[To Thb Editor Ktkatfoud Poif.] i Sir, -In Mr McAllister's first liter he says "no patients whatever gave jbeen refused admittance to the. |ub'lic Hospital." being an absolute dAiiu! of my statement. He now sa-y.s they have Keen refused admission, but Jout of consideration for Dr. Paget." Winch of these misstatements are we teg believe? I do not think his action* towards me give much support tdl ins second misstatement, more particularly as tho Huiroa case occurred eithJr at the end of my period of appreciated service or after that service had inded, and would not have been in |WJ charge. But if the reasons werj as stated, why have these cases not fieen admitted during the fourteen ifcya since my much appreciated services were dispensed with f $ Mr McAllister's dignified rSply evades my challenge that bis quofing the Inspector-General was likel}* to mislead the public into believing siat that gentleman knew of and approved the conditions prevailing, and if l|am wrong why does not Mr McAllister claim the £lO for the Belgian or Nival Relief Fund and prove to the puplic that "a fool and his money are apon parted" when he (Mr McAllister) takes a hand? There is no financial penalty for failure on his part. Cannot some one persuade him to flry? People of ordinary intelligence will "understand that when a returned solaier or any one else applies for relie* 1 cannot, "in common humanity," send him where he can not get it if "any other course is open to me, notwithstanding the inconvenience of tbat course to me. "Shall he ask bread and be given a stone?" Perhaps by Mr McAllister, or possibly he would replace the stone with a letter of appreciation and thanks, but I. happen to possess some sort of a conscience and some knowledge of surgery. ,3 Mr McAllister's reply may bo dignified, but it appears to me to bef a singularly inadequate double-shuffle, since he replaces one misstatement with another; again wrongly' implies knowledge, pn the tlH>,3>ifipec-tor-General; again; so dense that he cannot case of /the returned sprier kMpt'K to give afly Veply to the Board's mean? ; use p£ ssfc*<rules" and "fixed policies, 1 ' fails t# jtlefend or excuse his of discourtesy towards a patient and myself, and' finally falls back with a wail at what he calls "the offensive, personal references'! which he says he can afford to ignore, but'does not. Mr McAllister thinks I shall live to regret these offensive personal references. 1 consider them lair criticism of his fitness for the public position he occupies, and if ever 1 see any reason to change my opinion, f shall express my regret at having been mistaken and apologise. Tam sorry Mr McAllister's feelings should- be hnrt"-"by my considering hint stupid, but.l really do think he is. and T think stupidity in adopting a. wrong course, and obstinacy in pursuing that cbtlrso, knowin gitto be wrong-,- -shows a-aaan Chairman or a Hospital Beam, Uimi.;

ever that man may Vat I believe , i; |®^^Mister to be %, worthy, man, thougff singularly stupid, >tiw'equally obstinl ate, and I regret to have to add, laclflj* ing in frankness and a sense of faijt ness, which unfortunate qualities havj: led to the present impasse, and cause* severe hurt to the feelings of a d<£ fenceless patient, unfortunately uudcj| the control of Mr McAllister and tug Board. j| As to influencing Mr McAllister* friends in their opinion of him, I had! no such intention or desire. If by noff they do not know Mr McAllister fd| what he is. value his good points anflf deplore and overlook his bad qualified my opjnion will not influence them, I do not wish it to; their opinion M immaterial to the point at issue. 2 have not the remotest objection—naj| f should welcome the frankest from Mr McAllister, pointing out m| characteristics which in his mind ha\g led him to oppose me so strenuousM and treat me so ungenerously. la£ sure it would be interesting, instru|| tive (and probably amusing), arf| frankness from Mr McAllister in anj form would at least have, the refresß ing quality of novelty. I do not thing Mr McAllister can help being stupij| but I think he can be fraiffl and straight-forward in his opinions B he wishes to be, and I think if he woufl show himself to be so there are maig who would forgive him his have no animus or personal antipatW to Mr McAllister, but he will to receive my most strenuous oppo# tion to a course which I know to be wrong, which 1 believe he knows to be wrong, and which I feel sure the majority of the Board knows to be wrong. Meanwhile, personal aritm* on his and their part prevails, andft long as the Chairman's reply is "Wgnitied," his "rules" maintained, „and his "fixed policies" undisturbed, what matters if the physical and mental suffering of patients is increased, what matter that the rights of the .less wealthy arc ignored? Let us shout "Hail to thee. McAllister; Britons (under you) shall be slaves." I hope Sir, you will not see fit to head this "Dr. Paget's undignified reply." but I happen to value accuracy and frankness more than a false "dignity."— l am. etc.. T. L. PAGET. Stnrford, June 21st;. 1910'. (The above communication is- referred to editorially.—Ed. "Stratford Post.")