SUBSIDY REFUSED.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 10565, 19 April 1928, Page 3

SUBSIDY REFUSED.

DOCTOR -AT - TE ICAR AKA.

RESIDENTS’ PETITION FAILS. The subsidising o£ ft doctor in private pfftct'ice at Te ICanika to treat patients wlio would otherwise require to be brought into Cook Hospital, did-not appeal to the Board yest.erday, .when Dr W. A. Alexander, who has established himself in that centre, applied to Ife subsidised to the extent of £4UO per annum. . The proposition' was discussed at the previous meeting when tire hoard agreed to. obtain information from other hospital boards whether or not subsidising doctors in country centres Avas .generally adopted, i That data iwas submitted to the board yesterda'y; , showing that only on'e, or two out of a large number ot bodies assisted doctors , in country districts. A., petition signed . !(y 300 jjes’dents of the Waikohu county was also presented urging the board to, subsidise, the .doctor for that district, • . - - V'■ ■

The chairman (Mr YV. G. Sherratt? said he was not in favor of subsidising a doctor at Te- Karaka or anyv\ hero else.- The township was only threequarters of an hour’s' journey from town. Apart from that, during the winter, if the.doctor was called to attend a patient at Matawai he would have to go and return by train so that the. person could easily be' brought to town. It would lie better to spend the £4OO subsidy asked* on purchasing a new ambulance f remarked Mr IV. \Y. Shanks.

■■Mr H. Kenway opposed the proposal on the ground that it was unnecessary.

Dr Alexander waited on the board in support of his* proposition, lie stated that he would Lie able to attend to cases of sickness wh’ch coulu well be nursed in their own houses but who,’ under the present circumstances. would have to come to the hospital in Gisborne. In the case of children especially it was often not ad visa’f.e that they . should be removed from their homes. He could ilso' deal with the Maoris who were adverse'to calling in the district nurse or entering the hospital on account of their superstitious beliefs. Replying to Mr Bridge Dr Alexander stated that it’ the hoard subsidised him in his pract’cc ho intended charging less than the -British Medical Association, scale of fees; the mileage under this schedule was 6s and lie contemplated charging ss. [f, however, the Assoe’at'on insisted in the full rates being charged lie vould have to do so. After Dr Alexander had retired, the chairman stated the special eomiiittce who inquired into the proposition had no recommendation to make. Mr Tvenway moved that the board 'regretted it could not see its way to rrant the 'subsidy, this being second'd by Mr Shanks.

In appealing to. - the board not to reject the proposal Mr C. H. Bridge argued that the petition, bearing 300 ugnatures of Waikohu residents, should carry some weight with the board, and apart from that the district had not been properly canvassed. It did not prove that subsid es should not be granted tq> doctors in country centres because other boards lid not adopt this practice, he said. He contended that if Dr Alexander could be retained Ify a reasonable subsidy, the board should adopt the principle. The. board had already created a precedent in this direction iy subsidising a doctor in another part of the district. Mr J. E. Benson admitted that Waikohu had a claim to have a doctor .stationed there in view of the listyict’s large ’contribution to the boards’ funds by way of levies, but be contended as there was ample staff and accommodation at the hospital in town to deal w fch any cases from the country the board should endeavor to centralise its work, He was certainly opposed to granting a subsidy of £-103. Mr H. J. E. Tombleson said that no doubt Dr Alexander would he prepared to accept half the amount asked for, and ’Waikohu people would be satisfied so long as. they got a good man. The .motion refusing a subsidy was carried, Messrs Bridge and Tom Meson. being the only d’ssienbients.