Reply On Hospital Ban Sought

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31333, 1 April 1967, Page 12

Reply On Hospital Ban Sought

The group of Christchurch mothers concerned at- the banning of physiotherapists from two private hospitals said in a statement yesterday they were anxiously awaiting a reply from the chairman of St. George’s Hospital (Dr. L. C. L. Averill) to questions as to the reasons for the ban.

"The mothers concerned about the banning of physiotherapists from maternity theatres wish, for a public statement by Dr. Averill, as he was away when the original series of statements appeared in "The Press,’ ” said Mrs G. Drayton, who is acting as spokesman for the group, yesterday. “The group’s approach to the St George’s Hospital authorities to have the ban lifted was unsuccessful, and at the time it was made, Dr. Averill refused an interview," she said. The matter was considered important and urgent by all mothers associated with the approach, and particularly those affected by the ban who were expecting childbirth soon. “Why should this situation, causing undue stress to expectant mothers exist?” Mrs Drayton asked. “We wish to ask the reason for this present course of action by the board in which the nursing authorities were instructed to adopt a closed-theatre-door policy after many years of successful co-operation among doctors, nursing staff, and physiotherapists.” The statement expressed serious doubts as to how the hospital’s board could introduce a general policy affecting all confinements, “when it

appears obvious to us that each pregnancy must be diagnosed, and evaluated and a decision on whether a physio-

therapist should be present made by the. attending doctor.” Mrs Drayton said it was relevant to ask on what grounds the board had made its decision when the routine before and at childbirth involved a joint obstetric and physiotherapist operation, culminating in the natural childbirth technique which was so highly successful. “The next question applies to the hospital,” she said. “Why, when all the services provided by the hospital are paid for by the prospective parents, after allowing for the normal social security contribution, is the expectant mother denied access to the successful teamwork planned in advance by doctor and physiotherapist? It is this denial which can culminate in an unsatisfactory delivery of the baby for the mother. “From the personal experience of many of us who have suffered under the generally practised technique and have subsequently been delighted at the vast improvement inherent in natural childbirth, we ask why this latter technique is not permitted in public hospitals? “Lastly, when is action being taken to have this urgent matter rectified?”