MR FRASER CRITICISED

Grey River Argus, 14 March 1940, Page 10

MR FRASER CRITICISED

By Hospital Board [Per Press Association]. ASHBURTON, March 13. “Members of this board and respon-sible-minded members of the community will have read with amazement the published comment by the Minister for Health in reply to an agitation taken up by the committee of the Ashburton branch of the Labour Party, against the policy being carried out by this legally-constituted and duly-elected board,” said the chairman of the hospital committee of the Ashburton Hospital Board (Dr J. Russell Wells), in a. statement issued after the last meeting of the board.

Dr. Wells said in his statement that it was impossible to resist the conclusion that the department had no intention of discussing the matter from the practical, as opposed to the theoretical or political' aspects; but the board was still prepared, and, indeed, anxious to do so, when given the oppirtunity. “This strange reluctance on the part c.f the department to meet the board, and the implied threat in the •Minister’s statement, suggests a total failure to appreciate the difficulties of the problem and a determination to ignore them,” the statement said. ‘‘l therefore submit this question for the consideration of the Health Department, or of the Minister himself. “If, in the event of control being abandoned by the responsible board, two or more patients demand admission to Malvern when only one bed is available, how is the board, or its staff to decide which applicant is to be accommodated? If this question can be answered in a manner that disregards the means of the aplpicants (that method being objectionable to the department) and in a manner that leaves no ground for complaint on the part, am prepared to accept it as a part, am prepared to acecpt it as a solution of our difficulties. If it cannot be so answered, the board’s obvious duty is to prevent such a circumstance occurring, as it has so far done.

"I had occasion to discuss this point some years ago, with the late Dr. Frengley, who was then director of the Division of Hospitals, in connection with overcrowding of the general hospital, when I was Medical Superintendent. I can perhaps be cused if I overlook the fact that the views of the department may change, whenever there is a change of Government, but at that time I was advised that ‘the patient least able financially to provide for himself should be given preference.’ Perhaps there are now no necessitous cases in the community in the opinion of the department, or perhaps everyone is now equally necessitous. Not having access to departmental statistics I don’t know. lam only concerned with practical possibilities and not with political theories, or with a game of make believe. “However, I am convinced that any inconvenience resulting from the bbaird’s policy so far has been the direct consequence of the refusal by a few people to accept the board’s decision, and their failure to make other arrangements for which every facility is available. I say, with regret, and with a full sense of responsibility, that this attitude has not only been condoned but encouraged officially, by th e department.”