CORRESPONDENCE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XL, Issue 9292, 29 April 1920, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

COUNTY HOSPITAL,

(To the Editor "Gcabdian.'l

Sir, —Your leader of April 22 has opened a matter which is of very great importance to the whole of this County, and 1 was not surprised to see that it has drawn some comments from Dr. Hunter. In your issue of the 27th you attempt to dispose of the objections raised by Dr. Hunter with, no doubt, satisfaction to yourself. You seem to have rather begged the question when you start by asking: ''Can. a man who has been contributing hi&. quota to the rates and levies of > hos- • pitals for many years be said to be v receiving ' charitable aid' if eventually ill-health overtakes him, and heelects to be treated at the institution to whose upkeep he has paid without return, and whose treatment fees he pays whilst an inmate?" The onlyanswer I can give you to this is: That no one pays' lates or taxes with the hope of receiving a personal return -or quid pro quo for his money, and I am sure none of us pay charitable aid rates in the hope that we get free or cheap medical attendance or nursing, but rather that 'free or cheap medical attendance and nursing may be provided for those who either cannot pay or those fflho cannot afford the usual ' charges for medical aid and nursing; but it never was intended that those who. can pay should use these institu- . tions, especially at the very low rate charged by the Hospital Board. The charges cannot possibly cover anything ■ like the actual cost of medical and nursing attendance, let alone food and - lodging. That being so, surely anyone who can afford to go to a private doctor or a private nursing home should not be mean enough to take advantage of an institution which is provided by the ratepayers for those who, cannot pay or who cannot afford private nursing and medical attendance as charged privately; but, if,they do, they should, in fairness to the ratepayers, be charged a sum that will fully cover all expenses—medical, nursing, food, lodging, etc. —which must he considerable at the present time. Dr. Hunter points out that the more "popular-" the institution becomes, the higher the rates must be, which is going to make things hotter for those who can pay for private treatment. 1 must emphasise the point that I and others do not mind the rates providing that we are not imposed upon by those who use the hospital, instead" of paying for their own doctor ,and nursing. Surely you> do not think that it is fair or right, that a concern which is supported by the ratepayers, and which charges fees: which must be. too low to cover _ expenses, should enter into competition.' with private practitioners and nursing homes; because if you do it must only be a matter of time when all will have to go to the hospital, because the pri-. vate practitioners and nurses will have . been starved out on account of the popularity of the hospital. In conclusion, I, as an inmate of a private hospital on one or two occasions, can vouch for the fact that the charges of these institutions are not exorbitant, , when the cost of living and.the quality of the nursing is taken into consideration. I also protest as a ratepayer against the policy of popularising the hospital to encourage those who can afford private treatment to go to the Public Hospital at the expense of the ratepayers. Thanking you for your valuable' snace, and trusting that you will allow that there are at least two sides to every question which are entitled to* consideration.

FRANK PAWSON 139 Tancred Street.