The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1929 A TRIUMPH OF FOLLY

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 819, 13 November 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1929 A TRIUMPH OF FOLLY

li is never easy to persuade old men to modify their obdurate I opinions and sometimes it is impossible. This truism was demonstrated at the meeting 1 of the Auckland Hospital Hoard yesterday when an overwhelming majority of its members decided to accept a reduced tender fox- the erection of an infectious diseases hospital on a prepared site in the cluttered grounds of the Public Hospital. The elder statesmen among the administrators and expert advisers had their way in spite of medical and general civic opposition to the project, but their victory was a triumph in folly. Only two members of the board—*-Dr. E. B. Gunson and Mr. s - J. Harbutt—resisted the determination of their obdurate colleagues to establish a fever hospital near the heart of an expanding city which already contributes a substantial proportion to tlie Dominion’s annual total of infectious diseases. The dissentients were hopelessly outnumbered, but they at least had the consolation of knowing beyond dispute that they were on the side of the highest medical wisdom in older countries and in line with hospital administrative prudence. Other opinions may be cited to tlie contrary in retaliation. These need not be accepted as decisively impressive, for the mass of such opinion throughout the world represents a minority of medical experts. The occasion might be described pertinently as Dr. Valintine’s day. It was an emphatic declaration by the DirectorGeneral of Health that finally committed the board to ail extravagant policy, to say little about its potential danger to the community. The favourable opinion of the board’s most responsible adviser as to the site and size of the approved infectious diseases hospital was absolute and touched with valour. He confessed to some disturbance in his mind about the opposition to the scheme, but asserted that lie was not dismayed. This courageous attitude was fortified by a one-sided statement that

“numerous hospitals in other parts of tlie world had infectious diseases blocks in the same grounds.” Truth is always impressive; still it should be the whole truth in order to be completely effectual in its influence upon doubters. Tlie essential whole truth in this instance would have included an equally emphatic assurance that numerous hospitals in other parts of tlie world refuse as a matter of fixed principle and as a practice of safeguarding to erect infectious diseases blocks in their own grounds. Indeed, there was no necessity at all for Dr. Valintinc to sweep tlie world with his vision for the purpose of securing proof regarding the imprudence of the board’s scheme. Under tlie control of the Director-General of Health, there are main centres of population where hospital boards, presumably on tlie advice of bis department, have established infectious diseases hospitals far beyond the grounds of tlieir main buildings for the treatment of noil-infectious diseases. Perhaps Dr. Valin tine will admit that Edinburgh, which is only twice the size of Auckland and is not developing at the rate of Auckland’s growth, is still a model, as it is a Mecca, for bis profession. Has that centre of medical instruction and wisdom an infectious diseases hospital in the crowded grounds of its great infirmary? It lias not. There is an isolation block for observation and diagnostic purposes in the heart of the city, but Hie fever hospital is in tlie outer suburbs and amid surroundings which might well heal the sick without tlie aid of hospital doctors and administrators. Several members of the Auckland Hospital Board have expressed or affected surprise anil doubt as to whether or no there is much medical opposition to the board’s foolish scheme. It they do not yet know that neither the Honorary Medical Staff as a whole nor the majority of the local branch of the British Medical Association is in agreement with the board they should emerge from the dreamy state that is the scriptural prerogative of old men. Forty-five members of tlie -B.M.A. told The Sun’s representatives who interviewed them recently that the board’s proposal was wrong in principle, while some of them bluntly said ‘‘it was a wicked and disgraceful tiling.” Laymen need not try to make condemnation of the board’s policy more accurate or more complete.