LIABILITY SHOULD BE ACCEPTED

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 285, 29 August 1935, Page 10

LIABILITY SHOULD BE ACCEPTED

Patients’ Negligence Claims

MINISTER’S ADVICE TO HOSPITAL BOARD

By Telegraph.—Press Association.

C’hristeliureli, August 28.

Tin- liability of hospitals for injuries done to patients by the negligence of nurses and doctors was the subject of a long discussion at a meeting of the North Canterbury Hospital Board today. On the order paper for the meeting had been a proposal that tiie point should be taken to the Privy Council in an appeal against a majority decision given in the Court of Appeal, but a ■ letter from the Minister of Health. Sir Alexander Young, stated that such procedure was not advised on tiie ground that acceptance of responsibility by hospital boards was more acceptable to public opinion and would obviate legal technicalities such as had sometimes before prevented patients from obtaining any redress from injury received through negligence. It was finally decided that the section of tiie report dealing with the decision to support an appeal to the Privy Council be withdrawn from the report of the finance committee, and that the committee should make further inquiries into the position.

COMMITTEE’S REPORT

Letter From the Minister

Dominion Special Service. Christchurch, August 28.

The report of the finance committee dealing with the position stated: “A short time ago action was taken against the M’aitaki Hospital Board on account of ti patient being injured by alleged negligence by a nurse, with the result that damages were awarded against tiie board, and this decision was upheld on an appeal being made to the Court of Appeal. As this decision appears to be in conflict with all previous decisions, the hospital boards throughout New Zealand are being asked whether they are disposed to contribute proportionately to the cost of taking an appeal to the Privy Council. The committee recommends that this board should approve an appeal being made to the Privy Council. Inquiries are being made about the board taking out an insurance policy to meet claims in the event of such being brought against the board on account of negligence of persons in the board’s employ.” Insurance Cover Advisable. The letter from Sir Alexander Young stated that an appeal from a legal viewpoint might be justified and might have good grounds of succeeding, but from the general viewjwint it would seem that the majority decision of the Court of Appeal would be more pleasing to the public and might obviate legal technicalities which had prevented injured persons from obtaining redress' in the past, and it seemed advisable that the decision be accepted and hospital boards should be held liable. It was therefore advised that hospital boards take out an insurance cover against the possibility of such claims.

Referring to the proposal that hospital boards should contribute to the cost of the appeal which the Waitaki Hospital Board was considering taking to the Privy Council, the Minister's letter stated that it seemed that there was no statutory provision for such contribution. If the 'boards desired any legislative authority for such provision the Minister said he would be pleased to give the matter his attention.

It was explained that the Minister’s letter had been received after the order-paper had been drawn up and after the committee making the recommendation had met.

The chairman, Mr. 11. J. Dtley, said that he had received a letter from the Hospital Boards Association asking his views on tht matter, and similar expressions of opinion had been asked for from other members of tiie association executive. He understood tlqit many of the replies were in favour of boards accepting the decision of the Court of Appeal and insuring against their liability. The Rev. J. K. Archer said that it would now l.xv the business of the finance committee lo draw up an alternative report. Personally, lie would like to express the hope that if an appeal was taken to the Privy Council it would'fail. Hospital boards ought to bear their responsibilities and insure against their liability. The insurance cover would not be heavy, and, even if it was, it should be met.

Mr. Archer went on to say that while he had no intentio nof criticising the doctors—he knew that most of them were very careful and most efficient —-there had been mistakes made which had resulted in injury, hi some cases undoubtedly and admittedly through negligence. The reply to complaints in the past had been that the patient’s remedy was against the doctor and not. the board, but measures taken against an individual doctor to recover damages might often be ineffective. Without making any invidious comparisons, he would like to say iu this connection that boards might be a little more careful in their choice of staffs.

Mr. Otley: It can’t be done. Every care is taken now. Mr. Archer said that the board sometimes took people more because they offered to come on the staff than because they were fully qualified. In the dental service, for instance, lie would like particular care to be taken. He was more jealous of the service which the board gave to the public than of the training it gave to those, who came into its employ.