Hospital Politics.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18680, 1 May 1926, Page 14

Hospital Politics.

Those people who have followed the dispute between the new Minister of Health and the medical profession concerning hospital administration may have wondered what is the real cause of the quarrel. It began with some remarks by the Minister concerning the report of Dr. Malcolm MacEachern, the eminent American surgeon who recently visited New Zealand at the instance of the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association to investigate and report upon hospital administration and hospital practice. This, at any rate, was the public opening of hostilities, but for the true origin of the quarrel we should perhaps look a little further back and a little behind the scenes, where we. should probably *find a Health Department highly incensed at the idea that anybody but itself should seek to influence public opinion. Dr. MacEachern made a rapid survey of our hospitals, and made a report—r not .to the Government—which contained many good suggestions, and which was at the least the honest opinion of a surgeon of high distinction. Within a week the Minister took notice of this Report in a speech which was a loud blast of defiance to any gang of doctors who might use a foreigner to lever the Department and the democracy out of their places and hand over the control of the hospitals to the medical profession. While professing " anxiety to learn all we can " from America or any other part of " the world," the Minister made it plain that he has resolved that there is nothing to learn. "My policy," he "shall be to preserve the control of our hospitals in the hands of " the people, who are responsible for " arranging the finance and organisa- " tion of them. While I recognise and " appreciate the great services rendered "by doctors, I consider it would be a " serious, mistake if the control of our "hospitals were to pass into the hands "of the medical profession." There is nothing in Dr. MacEachern's report to justify this suggestion that the doctors desire, to obtain control of the hospitals, as Dr. Gibbs, of Wellington, indignantly reminded the Minister, but they do think that they have ideas which could be adopted to the advantage of the hospitals and the public. To Dr. Gibbs's rebuke the Minister replied, in a speech reported in yesterday's paper, in-a manner which is quite inexcusable unless there are facts to support him which have not been disclosed. The 8.M.A., he said, is angry with him because he did not throw his arms around Dr. MacEachern's neck and accept everything he said. The truth is that the B.M.A. was angry because the Minister, without the least excuse, ijnputed to it an intention which it disclaims. He added that.he was .not above accepting anything useful in Dr. MacEachern's report, but " when any- " one attempted to dictate to him or to "put pressure -on him, or to work "propaganda, or to undermine the " powers of Hospital Boards, the Deapartment, or the people, he would "be up in arms." Here, we believe, we have the root of the trouble, which is, a bureaucratic Department's resentment of any " interference," in the way of suggestion or criticism,with its power to do what it pleases in its own way. The Minister is very unwise in adopting this-attitude, for although the democracy values its rights and powers and liberties it does not believe unquestioningly that they will be lost if the public Departments are denied the attributes of infallibility and omnipotence. As a matter of fact, the public has in all countries in modern times acquired a wholesome distrust of the bureaucrats, and in the case of the Health Department that (distrust will not be lessened by the attitude ' of the Minister towards Dr. MacEachern's report.