HOSPITAL CONTROL

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 108, 7 May 1926, Page 8

HOSPITAL CONTROL

BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

STRONG PROTEST AGAINST MINISTER'S STATEMENT

.VIEWS OF MEDICAL PROFESSION.

In the course of an address at Huntly the Minister of Health made certain statements in regard to hospital control and the attitude of the medical profession thereto. These statements were repeated by the Minister at Blenheim and Auckland. Strong exception was taken to the Minister's remarks by the chairman of the council of the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association, and by the medical secretary of the association. The subject has been widely commented on in the Press. The following correspondence between the British Medical Association and the Minister, dealing with the points at issue, has been forwarded to "The Post" by the executive of the British Medical Association:— The Hon. Minister of Health. Sir, —At a meeting of the executive committee of this association, held yesterday, I was directed by resolution to write to you with reference, to the remarks on hospital control reported in the Press, as having been made by you at Huntly on the 26th instant. We feel sure you will agree that for the successful conduct of health matters in any community, nothing is more desirable than that there should be a spirit of friendly co-operation between the Government Health Department and the medical profession of that community. We thought that recent conferences between us had tended very grofttly to foster that spirit, and my ream for addressing you now is that ■we consider your lemarks at Huntly, in so far as they insinuate what would be an extremely improper attitude on the part of the profession, have gone far to show that your Department views the profession with distrust. Not only do they create in our minds the feeling that the Department is antagonistic in its attitude towards the profession, but they are also misleading to the public. I am directed to ask you if you will do something to remedy this state of affairs by making public an explanation of your Huntly utterances. We feel sure that the insinuation that the doctors desire to gain control of the hospitals, if made at all, must have been made by you thoughtlessly rather than deliberately. That such insinuation is cne engendered not only in the minds of the profession is made evident by the leading article in the "Evening Post" of 27th instant. It was made very clear at the recent conference, in which your Department took part, that the profession desired no such thing, and we consider it only just that any public statement giving that impression should be amended. Possibly you might also care to modify the impression made by your reference to Dr. MacEachern when you described him as an "American surgeon" visiting New Zealand. As you know, he is not an American, but a British subject at present residing in Chicago. He is not a practising surgeon, but a man who has devoted a lifetime to hospital organisation, and •who is recognised as one of the leading authorities of the world on hospital matters. Further, it would hardly be amiss if the public were acquainted ■with the fact that Dr. MacEachern's inspection of the hospitals of the Dominion was carried out with the approval of the Government, and that he was not kere to in any way support the proposals of the British Medical Association, or of any particular body. His opening remarks at the recent conference made that quite clear. He said:— If by my remarks and recommendations I can contribute in any degree to the straighten" lg out of your differences of opinion, and to the improvement of your hospital policy, I shall be more than happy in my work. There may be some things in my report with which you as medical men, as members of the hospital boards, or as officials, of the Health Department, cannot agree, but I wish you to understand that I have considered the patient all the way through. Actually, Dr. MacEachern's visit arose from a suggestion made to this association in a letter from the DirectorGeneral of Health, dated 15th August, 1924. The. United States of America •were quick to realise that Dr. MaeEachern a great Canadian, might help to raise their hospitals to a better standard of efficiency. His work there was »uch a signal success that the Victorian and New" South Wales Governments asked for his assistance. Surely this Dominion is not above considering suggestions made by the same authority. We desire to assure you, sir, that it is our very earnest wish that the Health Department and the medical profession in New Zealand shouF cooperate whole-heartedly and amicably in the interests of the sick of the Dominion, and we should like to feel that the impression created by your recent lemarks was not one which you really intended to convey. Finally, sir, we suggest that when Dr. MacEachern's report comes to hand it is quite within the bounds of possibility that you may find in it some suggestions which might be of definite help to your Department in the matter of hospital direction. The interim report so far received is, of course, only an abridged summary, and we hope that you win await receipt of the full report from an investigator whom your Department approved before condemning any of the suggestions he v likely to make. As this is a question affecting not only your Department but also the general poli ' of the Government, I am sending a copy of this letter to the Right Honourable the Prime Minister. —I am, ' ' D. EARDLEY FENWICK, Honorary General Secretary. MINISTER'S REPLY. Dear Sir, —I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 29th April referring to my remarks at Huntly on the 26th idem respecting hospital control. In reply, I beg to st^te that it is quite correct that I made the • -marks attributed to me on that occasion, and I r ay say at once that I see no reaBon to amend the statements then made, when I affirmed certain principles of policy, which I believe to be fundamental and in the best interests of the people of New Zealand, and, at the game time, in accord with thos; ideals of democracy which are the basis of our local governing system. I recognise fully how desirable it is in the interests of our public hospitals that there should be a spirit of friendly co-operation between the medical profession and the Department of Health. The officers of the Department assure me that their relations with the profession have been for some years past —and are at the present time —of the best possible character. It is unavoidable, of course, that at times the Department is compelled to take action ■which necessarily incurs the criticism «f some of the practising members of

the profession, but tho officers state that notwithstanding this fact there is, generally speaking, a recognition on the part of both the profession and tho Department of each other's duties and responsibilities, with the very best results. I sincerely trust that this desirable state of affairs will continue. With regard to your suggestion that I should modify the impression made by my reference to Dr. MaeEachern, it is regrettable that my remarks at Huntly have been interpreted by your executive as inimical to that gentleman. I recognise his standing as an authority on hospital problems and organisation in Canada and America. At the present time I have before me a copy of Dr. MacEachern's interim report, supplied to mo by the DirectorGeneral of Health, together w'th his commentary thereon, and I take this opportunity of assuring your association that such of the recommc dations made by Dr. MaeEachern as are practicable and likely to be of benefit to tEe hospital system of this country will receive my utmost consideration. May I repeat that I recognise the great desirability of friendly co-opera-tion between the profession and the Department, and that I welcome your letter as an indication to that desirable end. —Yours faithfully, J. A. YOUNG, Minister of Health,