HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 83, 9 April 1902, Page 3

HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION.

PKOVISION FOE, INFECTIOUS

CASES.

A NEW WARD TO BE BUILT.

A special-meeting1 of the Auckland Hospital Board -was held last evening-. The Chairman (Mr J. Stichbury) ■presided, and there were also present Messrs P. Dig-nan, Walker, -T. Bruce. J. Bollard", M.H.R., A. P. Friend, and G. J. Garland, also Drs. Makgill (District Health Officer), J. C. Collins (Hospital), and Mr E. Bartley (architect). Mr Stichbury stated that the meeting- was called to consider a request from Dr. Makgill that special accommodation for plague patients and for infectious diseases should be provided. At present infectious cases were fn the plague hospital- He thought that the Board should provide accommodation for infectious cases in its own ground. He tnought that the plague hospital should be kept for the purpose for which it was desig-n----ed. When the danger was past it should be removed, and he hoped it would be. There would be no harm in taking patients two or three miles by the ambulance, and. then isolating them. Mr Bollard agreed that the time had arrived for the erection of an infectious disease hospital, but thought it was not the Board's duty to erect the building asked for. The present plague hospital was built during a scare, and wnen the presence, of the Premier overawed everybody, especially the City Council. The responsibility of providing a plague hospital devolved on the local authority, not on the Board. Dr. Makgill would tell them that he had no claim at all on the Board. By the Public Health Act tlie City Council was the proper body To provide the hospitalMr Dig-nan: "Not City Council; say local authority." Mr Bollard said local authority was defined as City or Borough Council. Koad Board or County Council. It was further stated in the Act that half the cost should be borne by the Government in the same manner as subsidies were given to Hospital Boards. While knowing- that the Board paid half the cost of the plague hospital, he was prepared to hand it over to the City Council, and thought that was the least they could do. He moved: "That, in the opinion oif this Board, it is desirable that steps be at once taken to provide further accommodation for cases of infectious diseases, other than plag-ue, small-pox or leprosy, and that the plague hospital be handed over to the local authority."

Mr Bruce seconded pro forma. If anyone was responsible for the erection of the plague hospital it was himiself. He was Chairman of the Board at the time, and did not lose his head in the least when the scare was on. The Health Act clearly provided that the local authority was the right body to erect the building, but it was also pointed out that each local authority would have to build one of its own, and as the city paid one-half the contributions he himself suggested that the Board should carry out the work. He objected to the second clause in the resolution, because, if they handed over this building to the city the result would be that the smaller local bodies would have to erect plague hospitals for themselves, thus multiplying the number of plague spots- He favoured putting up new buildings for infectious cases, but he was certainly opposed to handing the buildings over to the City Council.

Mr Friend said it would be incumbent on them first to consider Dr. MakgilFs request contained in the requisition, that they should erect a temporary plagu.e hospital. This request was urged as a reason that they had taken the plague hiospital and used it for infectious diseases, leaving- no place for the reception of possible plague patients. In the P.ublic Health Act plague was classified with other infectious diseases, and the Act required but one hospital for all of these, including plague, and yet Dr. Makgill came to them and stated that they had taken the plague hospital for infectious,, diseases, and asked them to eredt a temporary plague hospital. The Act did not require this. In the Act power was given the local authority to build and maintain a special haspital for infectious diseases. It was not intended the Hospital Boards should erect these hospitals. He would oppose any building on the part of the Hospital Board, because it would be an admission that the Board were the responsible partiesMr G. J. Garland objected to the! Board taking any responsibility on itself in the. face of the Public Health Act. He would oppose the motion because they had no right to levy a rate, and no funds to build without borrowing. They had no authority to do what Mr Bollard suggested. If they erected an iwfectious diseases hospital they would be doing an illegal act. He hoped the Board would not allow itself to be led into doing what was wrong in this matter. The Health Officer might as well ask for them to erect a scarlet fever hiospital. They were now using the plague nospital for infectious diseases, and that was quite right. He believed that the hospital | for infectious diseases should be at Motuihi-

Dr. Makgill stated that in fhe sti'ict letter of the law the Board was not responsible. The posliviton was somewhat- altered by a clause in the Act empowering the Govemor-in-Council to declare any infectious disease dangerous, and he had received •notice that leprosy, bubonic plague and small-pox were included in that category. That gave wider powers than in ordinary infectious diseases. That, hmvever, was not very material, since the erection of infectious diseases hospitals was the duty of the local authority. But if they were going to stick to'the letter of the Act, as Mr Friend had suggested, why were they dealing with scarlet fever and other diseases? If they were going to ignore one, why did they not igniore the lot? If all were of Mr Friend's opinion, they might turn the patients out. He asked that since the hospital authorities had taken the plague hospital, and there was danger of a plague patient being brought to New Zealand at any time, that the Board shtould provide temporary accommodation, so that a case could be Isolated. He asked that a tent, with moveuble flooring1, be available whenever required. Members had airily said that the City Council was responsible. Was the

Council responsible Dor cases arising in the suburbs? He proposed t« erect this tent for temporary pur* poses. If they were to get together! all the local authorities in order t-a procure a tent, because the Auckland) Hospital had taken the plague hos-< pital for an infectious hospital, ifc' was an extraordinary thing. Commonsense and justice demanded that, having- taken the hospital, they should provide him with another place. He thought it was hardly an honourable position to take up, for the Board to take refuge behind his permission, and say they would do nothing further, after having taken possession of the hospital.

Dr. Collins said the wnole matter had arisen on the one side thxough. the neglect of the local authorities, and on the other side through bad legislation. In a city of about 80,000 people, they had no infectious hospital, apart from the g-eneral hospital. They had an isolated hospital called the infectious cottage, ana this, with four beds, was suppose* to accommodate the cases of scarlet fever and diphtheria from among* SO.OOO people. That cottage had been, so overcrowded' until now that they had been forced to take possession of the plague hospital. There should he^ separate provision for scarlet fever, measles and diphtheria. Were they tfc» erect small hospitall* for leprosy, small-pox and plague, each of which was as liable to occur as any other, and have tlie hospital staff liable to be called out to nurse them? He had the responsibility at the hospital, and was obliged to receive infectious cases when thero was no room for them- There should be separate buildings for scarlet fever, diphtheria and measles, and they should be near enough to be run by the nursing staff. Two nurses were now down with suspected diphtheria, this arising from there being no proper accommodation for them. He would recommend that a hospital be built capable of holding o0 patients, in separate buildings. If an epidemic of fever or diphtheria arose, what could they do, or what if a case of ]>lag-ue was discovered? The accommodation was simply disgraceful, and it was the result of the health authorities of Auckland casting the onus on the medical officer. They had no room, and yet they were told that they must take, in patients sent by the health authorities, or the consequences would; be serious. No nurses would volunteer to nurse plague patients in a tent in this weather, and without any conveniences at all. The chairman thought that they were looking at the matter from the wrong standpoint. It was absurd to think that the City Coxmcil should nurse sick people. The Council contributed to the funds of the Hospital Board, and it was proper that the Board should provide these hospitals. There had never before been so many patients down with infectious diseases, the highest number before being five or six. against 22 at present. The Hospital Board should have more accommodation for infectious diseases in the hospital ground, thus relievingthe plague hospital. He thought Mr Bollard should divide, his resolution, into two clauses. With regard to the tent the Board had made all arrangements, and could have it erected in two hours. Mr Walters asked if the Board had power to erect these buildings. According to the Public Health Act it appeared to him that the local authority was the only body who could da so. The chairman said they had th© power to erect any buildings in the hospital ground.. Mr Bollard said it had been argued that the whole responsibility should be thrown on the local authorities. He did not agree with that, and his resolution was proposed by way. of compromise. They had been in the habit of receiving infectious diseases into the hospital. He did not think: it reasonable to expect that the City Council should be asked to erect a hospital and to maintain it for all time for ordinary infectious diseases. He held that the three dangerous infectious diseases should be left to the proper authority, the City Council, and would object to the Hospital Board making provision for the nursing of these cases. Mr Bollard's motion was then divided, and the first portion was put and " carried, Messrs Stichbury, Dignan, Walters, Bruce, and Bollard votng for it. and Messrs Friend and Garand against. The second part of the motion — "That the plague hospital be handed over to the City Council" —was then dealt with.

Mr Friend suggested that "City Council" bo altered to "Government," his reason being that the. Government would have the responsibility oi: maintaining it. and perhaps before long the public would pull' the building; down. '

Mr Garland objected to the Boa.rd honding over the hospital until tfeeir £SSO was returned.

The chairman pointed out that there was no need for the motion, since the hospital being a fixture on the City Council ground, was already the property of that body. Again, as the Government partly paid for the building, the Board could not agree to hand it over.

Mr Bollard then suggested the erection of an infectious diseases hospital in brick, at a cost of £3000. the Government to bear half the expense. On the motion of the chairman it vras decided: "That Mr Bartley, in conjunction with the senior medical officer, prepare plans of a hospital in wood for the accommodation of 30 infectious patients."

"Dr. Makgill did not favour the/erection of permanent premises hi the hospital ground, as in the. future it was pretty certain that accommodation would have to be fonnd apart from the hospital, with accommodation for smallpox and plague.

Mr. Friend moved, "That before any: steps are taken to erect any bniMirrg1, legal opinion be taken as to whether the Board has any right to spend money on such a bnildtng, seeing the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1900," but the motion did not find a seconder.

The Board then adjourned.