"POISONOUS ARTICLE”

Evening Star, Issue 19723, 25 November 1927, Page 2

"POISONOUS ARTICLE”

(H HOSPITAL BOARDS’ BULLETIN AMERICAN EXPERT'S REPORT ‘•’These six major recommendations follow closely along the lines of those of the Mew Zealand branch of the British Medical Association. . . . \Vc must bear in mind also that in past movements to create additional districts or to establish and enlarge hospitals in outlying portions of the larger districts it is the local rivalries and ambitions of medical men which constitute probably the biggest factor that has had to ho contended with. . . . Ono of the main points at issue appears to be the question of medical .stalling, related to which is the question of fees for professional attendance. In this connection Dr MacEnchren’s recommendations . . . bear a close similarity to these of the 8.M.A.” These comments made in a nonparty journal,- the ‘ Bulletin of the Associated Hospital Boards of New Zealand,’ were the subject of an emphatic protest at last night’s meeting of the Otago Hospital. Board. The bulletin had commented on the final report on the dominion’s hospital system by the expert, Dr MacEaehern. “ 1 wish to take the opportunity of recording a protest against an unsigned article in the last number of the bulletin of the Hospital Boards Association,” said Dr Newlands. “As you know the full text of Dr MacEachern’s report is now available. A summary has been incorporated in the bulletin, and wliat I consider a most poisonous article has been written by somebody as a commentary on this report. ]t contains misstatements, which, I think, are travesties of the truth. It opens by giving a most perverted history of the splitting up of the dominion into what we all recognise as an undue number of hospital districts. If you read the article you will agree with me that it is not a_true presentation of what occurred. With a view to prejudicing readers of the ‘ Bulletin,’ it takes two opportunities of stressing the fact that Dr MacEachern’s report coincided with the policy of the British Medical Association. It scorns to rather make a point of stressing that, and the only inference is to try and create hostility cither to the report or the association.” Referring to the assertion that local rivalries and ambitions of medical men constituted probably the biggest factor in the creation of districts or enlargement and establishment of hospitals in outlying portions of the largo districts, Dr Newlands said: “I do not know exactly what ho moans, but if lie means that it is one of the factors in securing or agitating for an increased number of districts it is not true. It is certainly quite untrue as regards South Otago. T want to express my protest against what I consider a very unfair opportunity taken by a journal of this description to promulgate a very biassed idea of what the report is ami the relation of Dr MacEachern’s very well-meant endeavors to the programme of the 8.M.A.” Mr A. F. Qnclch suggested that the chairman (Mr IV. I|, S. Knight) should bring the matter before the Hospital Boards Association’s meeting. Mr J. W. Dove: Who is responsible for the editing of the ‘ Bulletin?’ Mr Knight replied that it was the secretary of .the Hospital Boards Association. Mr Dove: Is not the executive, on policy, consulted? Air Knight; In a case like this the executive should be consulted. The secretary would probably consult the president (Mr Wallace, Auckland). Mr Gallaway: Could we ask the secretary of the executive if the article was published with the approval of the executive ? Mr Knight promised to put the question to the next meeting of the association.