HOSPITAL AFFAIRS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 14 May 1925, Page 3

HOSPITAL AFFAIRS.

To the Editor of the “Timaru Herald. Sir, —“Ratepayer’s” exce’lent letter in this morning’s ‘Timaru Herald' has cleared the way admirably for others to follow. His carefully defined and well reasoned criticism ot the Hospital Board’s policy leaves the chairman no loophole through which to side-track; and encourages one to offer him support on one or two of his points. Referring to the question of maternity fees: The chairman stated in answering a question after his address to the Women's Citizens’ Association on May 7th, that accident cases were entitled to more consideration in the matter of fees than maternity cases, owing to the fact that the former are unforeseen, while the latter have some mouths in which to put money by. Anyone knowing anything about medical practice knows that most cases are covered by insurance; many others occur in a class from whom nothing can be recovered, as they own nothing and are here to-day and gone to-morrow; while. the remaindei, in case of genuine hardship, could have their fees reduced ■with the approval cl’ all. On the other hand, will Mr Potts, with his special knowledge of the poor, tell us how v'ho have the greatest difficulty in providing for the children they already have, can save towards the cost of another confinement?

Obviously the only fair way is to charge each patient an amount sufficient to cover the average cost of maintenance per bed, and to reduce the fees in cases of individuals who are unable to pay the full amount, which will include a large number of the maternity cases. If the fees are not to cover the cost of maintenance then, personally, I hold that patients with an income over a certain amount should be definitely excluded as they are not entitled to the charity of the community. This is a personal view, and in no way clashes with the general principle that in no case should maternity cases be penalised for the benefit of other sections of the public.

I wish to say also that I strongly resented Mr Potts’s statement at the same meeting that most of the criticism comes from people “with an axe to grind,” and also his assumption that the Board is more disinterested than any of its critics. Does not the chairman himself derive some pecuniary benefit from, or perhaps I should rather say, some recompense for his services to the Board? In any case, all criticism, whether disinterested or otherwise, is justified it it can be supported by evidence.

Lastly, the chairman’s claim that his return to the Board was. due to public endorsement of his policy is very much open to question. The number of votes polled showed apathy and indifference, not enthusiasm; and it is quite conceivable that many of those supporting him did so in ignorance of the real issues.—l am, etc., BEATRICE PATERSON. 16 Scfton Street, Timaru. May 12, 1925.