Hawke's Bay Herald. TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1894. THE HOSPITAL.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 9680, 15 May 1894, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1894. THE HOSPITAL.

In may be objected that in takiDg np

nch a position the Herald is stultifying

itself, as It waa at our instance the inquiry was held. It certainly was so. A set of circumstances came to our knowledge which compelled us, in the interests of the public, to a;-k for an inquiry, and without prejudging the caße in any way we may say say that the evidence given more than justified the stand we took. But our object was not to get any particular individuals publicly censured, least of (ill to "hound down 1 '

Dr. Metzles. Thu end Me had distinctly in view was the framing oi some insulations which should make a lecurieuce uf snch circumstances impossible. The Board has at preseut under consideration the whole question of the medical supervision of the hoppitil. We have before this expressed a strong opinion that the present arrangements, especially as to the admission of outside medical men, arc not satisfactory, and are injurious to

the beßt interests of the hospital. The particular matter of the supposed diphtheritic cases was quoted by us as an instance of this, and we asked for an inquiry in the belief that the result would materially aid the Board in coming to a tight conclusion on a matter it has already under consideration, And, viewed in the right light, we believe that the evidence laid before the Board will be of material service.

The net result, aa far as it concerns the Board, can be stated in a few words. Two doctors sent patients to the hospital with statements in writing

to the effect that in the opinion of those doctors the symptoms pointed to diphtheria. Dr. Menzies, and in his absence Dr. Spenoor, who was in charge, did not consider the symptoms diphtheritic. As by a resolution of the committee the medieil officer for the time being in charge of the hospital has sole control ot all cases admitted, both Dr. Menzies and Dr. Spencer disregarded the opinions of the outside doctors and acted on their owu sole responsibility. Circumstances afterwards arose which seemed to point to tbe diagnosis of the outside doctors as correct. Bat, we repeat, the Board are not called upon to take up the invidious position of deciding, as experts, that either Dr. Menzies and Dr. Spencer, or Dr. Innes and Dr. Moore, were right in their diagnOEea. The incident should be utilised, not to condemn or cast reflections upon any Individual or individuals, bnt as a guide in framing more satisfactory regulations for the future medical conduct of the hospital. Dr. de Lisle hit tbe case on the head whes he said that, If he were in charge of the hospital, and disagreed with the diagnosis of a doctor sending in a patient, he would com« mnnicate with that doctor and ask his reasons for that diagnosis. It) is no reflection on the skill of any hospital doctor to assert that in many instances an outside practitioner is in a better position to diagnose a paiticular case. He may have treated the patient for years, and know of constitutional weak, nesses or tendencies not apparent at firat glance, or he may be aware of the prior surroundings of the case— that certain forma ot sickness have been prevalent in that particular house or locality, and so on. AH these things may be quite unknown to the hospital doctor, though they might very materially influence his decision. Now we take it that it shonld be a rale Id all such caees that the doctor sending in a patient should be consulted. We would go fu'thti', and aay that doctors sending in cases should aa a matter of right be allowed to treat them if the patients desire it. Reverting to the position ot Dr. Meazles, we hold a very strong opinion that any action of the Board which might result in tha loss of his services to the hospital would be a public misfortune. There will be found grumblers in every hospital who will growl at doctors, nurses, food, and everything, no matter how excellent all may be. But we thick that those who have passed under Dr, Menzies' care and who are dissatisfied might be counted on the fingers ot one hand. Against those few there is the testimony of many hundreds who as long as they live will bear In grateful remembrance bis kindness, devotion, and skill. He is the same to all, rich and poor, fractlouß or patient, and, to nse a homaly proverb, in searching for a medical superintendent, the Board might go much farther and fare much worse. No man is infallible, and he may have acted with some want of judgment in tha particular cases into which an inquiry was directed. Bnt, looking at that in the moat severs light), there are valuable services to the publlo which far more than offset it. To mention one only, it was Dr. Menzies who saved Napier, and perhaps New Zealand, from what in all probability wonld have been a serious outbreak of small pox. It was at a time when no passengers from Melbourne were allowed to land without inspection by a health officer. A man ill on one boat was passed over by several health officers. At Napier he grew worEe and a then resident doctor ordered him to the hospital, certifying that he was suffering from some mild disease which did not preclude his admission into the general ward. But at aoon as Dr. Menzies saw him he diagnosed the case as a very bad one of confluent small pox, and bad the patient removed at once to the quarantine ground. Fortunately the infections period of the disease had not then been reached, and though the patient died, the prompt action of Dr. Menzies prevented all danger of the dreaded disease spreading. We mention this now because the public memory is short-lived, and there is often a. disposition to magnify a present error of judgment la a public man or official nntil it obscures much greater counterbalancing services in the past. We have felt it our dnty, in the public interest, to criticise the manage* ment of the hospital from time to time, but In so doing there has been no feeling against Dr, Menzies, and we believe that we have nearly the whole community with ua wheu we siy that, though better regulations are required to pat the hospital on a more satisfactory footing as I regards outside medical men, It wonld be a misfortune If in accomplishing reform the steps taken should be such as to 1 cause him to sever his connection with the institution. We see no necessity for ' that whatever, and, without presuming | to dictate to the members of tbe Board, i we have indicated what in oar opinion should be their broad line of action.

To- morrow the Hospital Board will meet to come to a decision upon the evidence taken on Friday at the enquiry Into the placing of alleged diphtheritic patients in tho general ward. We are sorry to see n journal supposed to be under the control of the Chairman of the Hoard declaring tbat one result must be that " Dr. Menzleß must go." Wo see no necessity for any snch Btep. Patting the worst aspect pooslble on the affair, it simply amounts to this — that Dr. Menzies, In common with Dr. Spencer, made an error, seriou 0 in its way, in diagnoslag two cases of badrtbroats. They did not consider the symptoms diphtheritic. Two other doctors did. Here wo have presented to us the old crux, " When doctors differ who shall decide?" If the committee come to any conclusion involving either the condemnation or tho reverse of Dr. Menzlea, the members will be arrogating to themselves the functions of experts in dleoaees of the throat. That would be supremely ridiculous,