HOSPITAL DISPUTE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 50, Issue 130, 14 March 1930, Page 6

HOSPITAL DISPUTE

DR. WELLS' ALLEGATIONS. REPLY BY THE CHAIRMAN. POINTS DEALT WITH SERIATDM. The following statement signed by the chairman of the Ashburton Hospital Board (Mr W. T. 1411) in reply to the statement made by Dr. J- R" B *|" Wells on Monday was handed to the "Guardian" for publication to-day.— Dr. Wells' statement in your paper of Monday last *Jg*3gJ beginning to end, and 1S altogethei misleadine to the public. In tne nisi place at the previous Board meeting Dr. Wells had.the opportunity ofiefutine all that was said. He askea for dme and he would bring witnesses to prove his statements against the secretary which he admitted having made. 1 felt that the nmde at this meeting to take Dr. Wells replv in committee might be misunderstood; therefore, at the following meeting I put the question to the Board and gave them the opportunity of taking the matter in open Board ttaa Br Wells been so anxious to take tne matter in open Board, lie would have availed himself of his right of notice of motion to rescind the former resolution and under these conditions a bare majority would have carried it. When I brought the matter up, it required a unanimous vote to take the matter in open Board. I think that Mr Bryant and Mr Hardy were quite within their rights in voting against it, and I am not reflecting on them. . The tactics used by Dr. Wells in setting an executive officer to come to his house and then demanding that he cease doing things he had never cfone were not commendable to anyRegarding the attendance of the Medical Superintendent at meetings, I took the sole responsibility, acting on the advice of the Department ot Health as shown in its by-laws, which distinctlv state that the Medical Superintendent "shall" be in attendance at Board and committee meetings. Ihe word is not "may" or "ought, but "shall." Having requested him to come to meetings, I sought the Board s approval, and the Board passed a unanimous resolution approving of it, therefore Dr Wells did not yote against it This was in Dr. Bathgate's time, and when Dr. Billcliff came back I requested him to attend all meetings. I have every belief .that the Board approves of it, and I am also confident that the presence of the Medical Superintendent 'is essential to the good working of the Hospital. The statement that the Medical Superintendent is permitted! to take part indiscriminately is not so. In the important matter of the honorary staff, I deliberately refused Dr. Billcliff permission to speak in the debate, although requested to do so by a Board member, until the yote had been taken, and then he was asked to make a statement. Therefore Dr. Wells' statement that the Medical Superintendent is allowed unbounded opportunity to speak is a deliberate mis-statement. The Medical Superintendent is not permitted to speak on policy matters without the consent of the'chairman. That's that! The so-called "luxury" for the nurses was not a luxury in my opinion. It was a volley board for the tennis court, and cost £6. It might be said that the tennis court was a luxury. It cost the ratepayers not a penny, as I collected the money for it myself. The • anonymous donor was my own wife, who was an ex-patient and wanted to do something for the nurses for the kind ajftention she had received while in Hospital. I was offered subscriptions from other people, but told. them I did not require them. If anonymous giving is a crime in the eyes of Dr. Wells, then, happily, there are a goodly number of criminals walking around Ashburton. the committee considered that the ratepayers' money should not be used for a volley board, is this any reason why a gilt to pay for the board should not be accepted? I fail to see his principle. Let me say that the secretary knew nothing about it, and in announcing the gift he followed the wishes of the donor. Mr Gallagher, at the same meeting, gave notice of another anonymous gift from another grateful patient. That's that. Dr. Wells' remarks accusing the Board of oppressing poor people with large.families for payment of accounts are beneath contempt, and I want Dr. Wells to bring his cases. He has never even suggested anything like this at a meeting, and I have never heard him oppose any resolution about patients' accounts. I am confident that the Board has never oppressed any such poor people when their circumstances were known.—And that's that! The radium question is something like other things I have seen in Dr. Wells. It is my opinion that he is always against anything for the good of the local hospital. After his return from England and America Dr. Billcliff put it to me that he was of opinion, having studied the problem in England, ti 1 at radium in the "Ashburton Hospital would be of infinite value to the sick of this County. Nothing was done until a letter was received at short notice from the Travis Trustees, with whom neither he nor I had been in communication, but who had obtained their information from one of the Sisters, following a lecture on radium whieh had been given. This letter stated that as the Doctor was interested in radium they wished to see him and discuss the matter. This was about three weeks before their T'isit. The visit took place three or four days before the Board meeting, find their written offer wa"s received the next day, and the Board was informed of the fact two days after receipt of the first definite offer. How then does Dr. Wells say that the scheme was hatching for three months? In his report Dr. Billcliff offered to raise the money himself to buy sufficient radium for the Hospital if the Board approved of it. Dr. Wells was a strong opnonent of having radium for our own sick people in Ashburton, even although he knew that it could be effectively and efficiently used —and that's that. Re By-Laws: I tried to get a further meeting to attend to these but pressure of business and holidays made this impossible for members. Dr. Wells' assertions about "drastic alterations" are contrary to fact. The whole of the bv-laws are the printed extracts from the Health Department's model bylaws, with email alterations to suit local circumstances. Neither the Board nor the Institution is inconvenienced bv their delay, which delay is not due to the secretary. It is not a matter of urgency. I instructed the secretary to use all the best points in the Department's model by-laws, and he carried out this instruction. I am painfully sorry that the Doctor has taken up the attitude he has done, for these methods cannot be for the good of the Hospital. From the Board's standpoint, the secretary has done his duty and done

his duty well, and the Department has more than once congratulated the Board on the way he has done his Work. ~,. Mr Editor, I quite agree with your remarks that a member carrying on here, should do so for the host interests of the institution, irrespective' of his personal feelings or personal gain. When I am convinced that Dr. Weils is acting for the good of the Institution he will receive my strong support, hut when he did not deny that he had said he had been waiting for five years to have a slap at the Hospital", he cannot expect any support from me —so that's that. W. T. LILL, [ Chairman.