ST. HELENS INQUIRY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 57, 7 March 1913, Page 2

ST. HELENS INQUIRY.

YET ANOTHER COIHTEAUTt. PATTENrS NAME NOT OMBCEOSED. The inquiry into < the* management of the St. Helens Maternity Hospital was resumed thia morning before Mr. C C Kettle, ELM., Commissioner. Mr. Selwyn Mays appeared for the officials of the hospital, and Mr. A. E Skelton for the Auckland Timber Workers' Union, one of the complainants. Mrs. Emily Nicol appeared on her own behalf,, as representing a number of others. Mrs. Nicol put in a new complaint concerning a patient, whose name the Commissioner would not allow any of the parties to disclose. Mr. Mays entered a formal protest on the ground that Mrs. Nicol .had not obtained the consent of any of the parties concerned, but the Commissioner accepted the complaint, which, however," he did not read aloud. Examined upoa .-the- complaint, Dr. iDglis, medical officer of the home, stated that the patient was confined in her own home under the charge of one of the district nurses. The day after her confinement, which took place on February 2 of this year, he was informed that she had had a fit, and on visiting her he found that she had a declampsia—a very serious complication—and ordered her removal to St. Helens. She remained there till the next day, when it was found that she was suffering from the disease mentioned in the .complaint. He then ordered her removal to' the General Hospital, where she died on February 5. He was not present at "the, confinement, I but saw the patiepfc. twice on the fol--1 lowing day. It "was a usual thing to receive 'district patients into." St. Helens when complications arose. It: would have been improper to have- left the patient in her own home in this instance. The Commissioner Tead some extracts from the General Hospital report on the case, which stated that the patient was admitted in a delirious condition. In answer to a question by the Commissioner, Dr. Inglis stated,'that the woman was removed to the General; Hospital because she -was distu-r-bing the ether patients. In reply to Mrs Nicol, the witness said that it was a. fact that the patient had been privately attended by him; he had been" the family doctor for years. He had no knowledge that a room had be'en engaged for' her in a nursing 'home' in Ponsonby. He had nothing to do with the calling in of the St. Helens nurses. ' Mrs Nicol here; referred to the case as one of intimidation. She said that Mr Mays tad obtained from the parents of 'the deceased a statement in which they expressed a wish'that the case should not be brought before the Commission. ' - - -■• Mr Mays explained that when Mrs Nicol mentioned the case at a previous hearing she stated that she had the full consent of the parents, arid, doubting •this, he had interviewed the latter and obtained a statement from them to the contrary effect.

■ Dr. lnglis volunteered the statement that he had accompanied Mr Mays on his visit to the parents. In answer to Mr Mays, Dr. lnglis said that the -patient's habits were such that *a miscarriage or premature birth, which, latter actually occurred, might have been anticipated. He personally warned, the. husband; a,bout: it several months before'the patient died. No comever been made, to 'him by the "relatives. '

The Commissioner remarked that '■ it was much to be regretted that Mr Mays, as Crprwn solicitor, should have taMjn >the course of going "to" interview the parents. The proper course would have been to issue a subpoena if he wished •to combat any statement made by Mm Nicol. J •

"... Mr Mays' said that he couldn't accep! his Worship's regrets. When the Aeceased patient's parents not. only made no complaint, but, further, wished tHS whole matter to be kept out of the inquiry on account of" their daughter's habits, it would have a very improper proceeding to "haul them into Ime witness box, the more so as the mothfef * (ah did' lady)' ' ' particularly dreaded the. ordeal.

It was agreed that the inquiry shouia" be adjourned until - after the return from Gisborne of Mr Justice Cooper, whose decision it-is proposed to. ask as' to whether certain documents dealing ■With'6asea other, than,.those- specified in complaints .can" be::«-xamined> A" short sit*rngm chambers-was.te'ld.to'prepare a statement for submission tp. him. •;