BODY LEFT IN MORGUE

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 December 1940, Page 2

BODY LEFT IN MORGUE

GREY HOSPITAL INCIDENT. BOARD DENIES RESPONSIBILITY As a sequel to the death on November 9, at the Grey Hospital, of Mr. Charles Bromley, 55, single, of Taylorville, a coalminer and returned soldier, who had no relations in. New Zealand, and whose funeral did not take place until November 16, rumours have been prevalent regarding the conditions existing at the Hospital. Publicity was given to the matter at last evening’s meeting of the Hospital Board, when the Chairman (Mr. J. Mulcare) announced that, in compliance with the decision taken by the Board, sitting in Finance Committee on Monday evening, a statement J had been prepared by the , secretary (Mr. J. E. A. McKeefry). The statement reads as follows: — “On admission to Hospital of a patient, full particulars are obtained from the patient, and included in these particulars is the name of the next-of-kin, how they can be communicated with, and the nearest telephone number. After Mr. Bromley’s death on Saturday, November 9, the person whom he had stated as being his next-of-kin was communicated with. According to the statement of the Sister-in-Charge of the ward, this person visited the ward on the Saturday morning, and was asked if he would be making the funeral arrangements. The reply was that Bromley was a returned soldier, and that the R.S.A. would be making the arrangements. On the Saturday, someone representing himself to be a member of the R.S.A. rang, making enquiries about Mr. Bromley’s relations, and was given all available information. Following on the statement of the next-of-kin that the R.S.A. would be making .arrangements, and the further telephone enquiry from a member of the R.S.A., it was naturally thought that the usual arrangements would be put in train. The Board does not make arrangements for funerals unless they are notified by the next-of-kin that they are unable, for financial reasons, to make the funeral arrangements. “It is unfortunate that the outside porter, whose duty it is to clean the morgue once a week, was avzay on leave. The inside porter, whose duty it is to clean the mortuary after a body has been taken away, had. only commenced duties, and no indication was given the office that the next-of-kin was not making the funeral arrangements. As soon as the office was informed, the undertaker was communicated with immediately, and the body removed on November 15 and buried on Saturday, November 16. “Steps have now been taken to ensure that there will not be a recurrence of an incident which can only be attributed to the neglect of the next-of-kin to inform the Board’s officers as to whether' or not he was making the funeral arrangements.”

“MALICIOUS RUMOURS.” The Chairman: I wish to reply, on behalf of the Board, and to what, in my opinion, are lying and malicious rumours, exaggerated and distorted beyond any sense of fair play, and without resemblance to British justice. One is compelled, for the protection of Board members, to make a reply and an explanation. It is quite true, as the Board know, that a regrettable delay occurred in regard to the funeral of this particular patient, a delay which might possibly never have happened. As the report states, provision has now been made to prevent a recurrence. I think that the general public, and organisations generally, would be well advised to get in contact with the office, and try to get an explanation of anything. After all, the Board has been'a target for rumours, ever since I have been connected with it. They were mostly unjust and lying rumours, too. So far as the Board is concerned, I think that every member is most anxious to do his job to the public, and that he does do it. •To suggest, as has been suggested to some Board members, that an attempt had, or would be made to cover the thing up, is ridiculous in the extreme. I know that, on local bodies with which I am connected, things are never thrashed out as thoroughly as they are on the Hospital Board. It is ridiculous, and utterly impossible, to suggest any covering up of any faults by the Board. In any case, it is not the Board’s desire to do so. I am sorry it is necessary to make this explanation. I know that some of the members feel hurt, and think that a public explanation should have been made previously. lam sorry, but I did not realise the amount of distortion which was prevalent generally. I hope that the statement will clear the matter up. If not, the Board will explain anything further. It was a most unfortunate episode, and every Board member regretted it. POSITION OF R.S.A. Mr. A. H. McKane (President of the Grey R.S.A.) said that he had been in touch with the Brunner R.S.A., and the statement was correct that a member of that organisation —not an executive member—rang the Hospital and asked for particulars of Bromley’s death, and was given the information. The R.S.A. then got in touch with the next-of-kin, or the man who was set down as the next-of-kin, and he informed them that Bromley had an estate. By reason of the fact that Bromley had an estate, the R.S.A. simply let the -matter stand. The R.S.A. merely came into the question of burial when an ex-serviceman died in indigent circumstances. When they were informed that Bromley had an estate, they had no further hand in the matter. The statement prepared by the secretary was handed to the Press, and the Board went on to discuss other’ business.