TV Thought Factor In U.K. Litigation

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30233, 11 September 1963, Page 14

TV Thought Factor In U.K. Litigation

Hospital boards in Britain had faced a spate of litigation over recent years, and this was probably connected with the tremendous number of medical and hospital programmes on television, Mr P. W. H. Revington, legal adviser to the Manchester \ Regional Hospital Board, said in Christchurch yesterday.

Many persons seemed to take a different sort of interest in hospitals after seeing such programmes as “Dr. Kildare” and “Emergency Ward 10” (a British TV serial), said Mr Revington. The tendency was for what went on in hospitals to be glamorised in television programmes, Mr Revington said. “I suppose they’ve got to alter things a little bit to make the programme entertainment,” he said. “The same happens with you in the newspaper world, of course. If I took my knowledge of newspapers from what I saw on TV I would imagine you all rushing round in green eyeshields answering six telephones at once, but it’s not like that at all really.” But some of those who watched hospital procedure for 10 years as presented on their TV sets expected something of the same when they entered hospital, and if the real-life hospital did not match what they had been led to expect they tended to be critical. The TV medical programmes were not. however, uniformly bad—in fact, some were very amusing and extremely popular, while others were highly interesting and educational “Your Life In Their Hands,” a series depicting operations, was a good example of the true-to-life educational type of programme. The question was whether the public were ready to receive such programmes as this; there was also some disagreement over how beneficial or otherwise the more glamorised type of presentation might be. Litigation Most otf the litigation affecting hospital boards in Britain at the moment concerned the master-servant relationship

between the boards and their employees, and the position of the board as the “occupier of premises." The sort of case met with under the latter head included accidents on overpolished floors, poorly-lighted stairs, and the like. In the early 1950’s there had been a large number of oases alleging negligence by medical and nursing staffs, but this type of case was now much less common, probably in the mein because so many of the cases had been unsuccessful. Mr Revington thought the original cause of this rash of dissatisfaction might have been the nationalisation of the hospitals in 1948. The attitude of some persons to a nationalised service seemed to be “we pay for the service, so you must cure us.” The board which Mr Revington serves provides the hospital services for a population equal to about twice that of New Zealand. It has an annual budget of about £36m. employs about 35.000 persons, and cares for 45,000 patients in 200 hospitals. Because it is in such big business, it carries no ordinary insurance to cover possible claims, but employs its own solicitor, as most large organisations do. Mr Revington is in New Zealand on a private visit with his mother to see Mrs Rev mgt on’s sister, Mrs B. M. Willman, and her family in Russley road, Christchurch He has paid brief visits to the Health Department in Wellington and to the North Canterbury Hospital Board office and the Princess Margaret Hospital. He is much impressed, he says, with the “obvious keenness and enthusiasm and grasp of their job” of those who control the New Zealand hospital system.