Differences On Duties

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31089, 18 June 1966, Page 23

Differences On Duties

(N.Z. Press Association) INVERCARGILL, June 17. Members of the Southland Hospital Board clashed yesterday on the duties of the board’s new physi-cian-extraordinary, Sir Charles Burns. During a discussion which lasted 30 minutes and was at times heated, the board was told that as far as the doctors were concerned, there would never again be reason for an inquiry concerning the relations between the board and medical staff. The subject arose when the board had placed before it, a

letter from the board’s acting medical superintendent, Dr. Ramsay, saying he was unwilling to approach Sir Charles Burns on the matter of his exact duties.

“There is no doubt in the board’s mind that Dr. Ramsay is the acting-superintendent,” Dr. Russell Hunter said. “Therefore, any question of undermining his authority does not exist. He and Sir Charles must be able to discuss things amicably. “It does not portend well if they cannot get together now.”

Mr G. D. Cochrane said that it was necessary for the board to decide whether Sir Charles Burns was to take up a physician’s duties, as weil as those of a consultant. Mr Cochrane said that it

would do no harm for the board to let Sir Charles Burns know what proportion of his time should be spent as a physician and as an adviser. The original idea was that he would come purely as a consultant, Mr W. R. E. Heenan said. Though it had given him the title of “physicianextraordinary,” the commission of inquiry had not intended him' to be a physician with a physician’s duties.

Unless Sir Charles Burns had sufficient time left over from his consultative capacity, to do a physician’s work, the matter need not be raised, said Mr Heenan. If, in discussion with Dr. Ramsay, Sir Charles Burns showed a willingness to carry out a physician’s duties, then it should be left to them to negotiate and decide on the exact details, Dr. Hunter said.

“As far as I am concerned, there has never been official word that Sir Charles Burns will do a physician’s duties,” Mr Heenan said. “It was accepted among counsel that he is a consultant, not a physician.”

“We don’t know what went on behind the doors of the commission,” said Mr M. W. Grantham, acting-chairman of the board. “Why did they give him tlie title of ‘physicianextraordinary’?” Dr. Hunter then moved that the matter of Sir Charles Burns’ precise terms of appointment be left until after he arrived. The motion was seconded by Mr A. Edwards.

Mr Cochrane moved an amendment empowering the board to seek information from the chairman of the commission of inquiry on the exact details of Sir Charles Burns’ position and the duties he was to undertake. The amendment was passed unanimously.