TRAINING NURSES

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 12, 14 July 1930, Page 10

TRAINING NURSES

SENTIMENT OR REASON ?

STUDENTS AT ST. HELENS

A MEDICAL OPINION

A statement regarding the admission of medical students to St. Helens Hospitals was made to "The Post" today by Dr. T. .F. Corkill, president of the Wellington Division of the British Medical Association, and vice-president of the Obstetrical Society:— "A recent letter to the 'Auckland Herald' by a correspondent, 'F.R.C.S.' is the subject of the extension of the facilities for the training of medical students at the St. Helens Hospitals, and a letter to the 'New Zealand Medical Journal' by Dr. Jellett, advisory medical oificer to the Department of Health, supporting the suggestions therein made, have aroused considerable protest in certain quarters against what is termed an invasion of the St. Helens Hospitals," said Dr. Corkill. "The protests have been entirely on sentimental grounds, and much has been said of the wishes of the great founder of those institutions —Mr. R. J. Seddon. It would seem necessary, therefore, to put the position as it appears to those who believe that in the interests of the womanhood of New Zealand as a whole it is necessary to utilise all possible opportunities for tho practical training of tho future medical men of the country. "In the first instance, with all due honour and respect to Mr. Seddon, it must be pointed out that these institutions were not established by private endowment,- but by public money, and that future generations must have the right to adapt the working of these hospitals to suit changing conditions. Tho primary object of the St. Helens Hospitals —that of providing safe motherhood at the most moderate charges, and the training of good midwives—has in no way been altered. But a very superficial comparison of the St. Helens Hospitals then and now will show that as the result of the scientific development of obstetrics they have in many respects departed from the lines of the 'homes' of Mr. Seddon's conception. They are now fully equipped . maternity hospitals. The utilisation of the St. Helens Hospitals for student training is largely due to an insistent public demand for better midwifery, and is but another of the inevitable changes. To suggest that the entrance of students into these hospitals is a matter of self-interest is totally wrong. A standard of practice which was accepted twenty-five years ago would not bo tolerated at the present time. DEFINITE RESPONSIBILITY. • "The Government imposes tlto_ most stringent regulations on the- practice of midwives, maternity nurses, and doctors. Here is, therefore, a very definite responsibility on the Government to see that the necessary practical training is made, available. This the Department of Health realises. Conditions have indeed changed since the days when Mr. Seddon, as quoted by Mrs. Hay, considered that the responsibility of the Goverumcnt of tho Day to the public in this matter could be met by the expenditure of £200 to thoroughly equip the old refuge as a maternity home and make proper provision for studentsl "One correspondent attempts to make the point that in other walks of life the Government does not accept responsibility for practical training. But is this so? Through the terms of their student training or their apprenticeship, which are largely governed by Government regulation, dentists, lawyers, accountants, engineers, and plumbers are definitely provided with that practical training which they require. But as a matter of very transparent fact the circumstances are very different. In the cases just referred to mistakes made whilst gaining experience privately are not irretrievable; in the case of the recently graduated medical man a mistake might be a matter of life and death. Would the public of to-day prefer a return of the haphazard conditions of private apprenticeship to the extended, properly supervised tuition, before graduation, which is the present aim? To state, as Mrs. Hay does, that the presence of students at St. Helens Hospitals is 'a blow at the very dignity of motherhood,' or .to call it 'a violation of the sanctity of St. Helens Hospitals,' as was elsewhere maintained, are surely wrong views of the case. If there is tho least foundation for these statements they must apply to any institution «^at which such clinicai instruction in midwifery is given. IN WHAT DIRECTIONS? "Where, then, are tho students to obtain that training which the public itself is demanding? Mr. Chapman in theHouse states vaguely that the medical students can. get their training in other directions. Where are these other directions? The payment of fees at St. Helens Hospitals is used as an argument. But are there any hospitals at which fees are not charged—at least nominally? Fees are charged at the public hospitals at which our students must of necessity receive their instruction in other branches of medicine. "Granted that.the establishment of the new maternity hospital and training school in Dunedin will, as we hope, largely solve the problem, it yet remains a fact that Dunedin is a comparatively small city, and that the utilisation of every other reasonable opportunity for clinical instruction is for the benefit of the mothors of. the Dominion. This position is fully realised not only by the medical profession and the Department of Health, but also by thoughtful women outside the medical profession. It has been forcefully put by Miss A. Maclean, late Director.of the Division of Nursing and Assistant Inspector of taIs"SYMPATHY AND ANXIETY." "One can state most definitely that every medical student who attends the St. Helens Hospitals does so with sympathy and an earnest anxiety to fit himself for those great public responsibilities which he will meet with in the practice of this branch of his profession. Approached in this spirit is there anything indelicate or offensive to the susceptibilities? "Much has been made of the argument that the entrance of students into these hospitals will keep the mothers away. That argument is easily combated. The admission of students was arranged for in 1918, since when there have been a few students attending every. year. Yet tho number of patients has been steadily increasing, and no opposition has come from the patients concerned. "It would therefore appear that the present agitation is the result of a misunderstanding, .and assuredly if the position is not realised in its proper light there is a serious danger of sentiment overcoming reason. "Does the teaching of students interfere , with the/instruction of midwives? Those responsible for the train-i-ng of the latter —the matrons, medical officers, and the Department of Health —are satisfied that it does not. Indeed, as Dame Janet Campbell has stated, the combined training of students and pupil midwives is beneficial to both. It is urged, therefore, that any

restriction of this very reasonable and beneficial extension of training would be inimical to the- best interests of the mothers of this country."