CHOICE OF DOCTOR

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 55, Issue 32792, 20 November 1946, Page 10

CHOICE OF DOCTOR

REQUEST TURNED DOWN PETITION FROM WHITIANGA CONTRARY TO BOARD’S POLICY Over a hundred residents of Whitianga and the surrounding districts have signed an appeal to the Thames Hospital Board, seeking the right to have the doctor of their choice attend to them if they should be admitted to hospital. When the matter came before the board at its November meeting there was a strong feeling against the position. What was being asked was contrary to the policy of any hospital board. The petition read that the residents of the district wished to continue to choose their own doctor, and as ratepayers and their dependents those who had signed the paper objected to any discrimination against them or the doctor of their choice. They requested the board to ensure them that full medical service would be available to them, without discrimination of any kind by the board, or any one employed by the board. The services were to include full treatment by their own doctor, provided that doctor worked regularly in the district, at and in the Whitianga Hospital, and with the right, if necessary, direct to Thames Hospital, or the larger hospitals of the cities for specialist treatment. Policy of Board The chairman of the board, Mr J. W. Danby, pointed out to the members that the board could not allow any doctor outside of the board’s employee to attend to patients in the Thames Hospital Board’s wards. It would mean the disruption of the efficient working of the hospitals’ staffs. It was essential that those who worked in the hospitals came under the jurisdiction of the medical superintendents who worked for the board. Mr J. W. Neate stated that the requests of the petition could be granted if the board was to appoint visiting assistant doctors to the hospitals under the board’s direction. These doctors would have the right to attend to the patients who wanted them, and at the same time they would have to conform with the rulings of the board’s superintendents. Decision of Members Mr C. W. Parfitt pointed out to the board that the appointment of visiting assistant doctors was practicable in the cities but it would not be worth while in the cases of the hospitals under the Thames Hospital Board. On the motion of Mr Edwin Edwards it was resolved that the petition be received, and that the petitioners be advised that the board had no authority to object to any resident engaging his or her own medical adviser but regretted that it could not agree to. patients being admitted to the board’s hospitals, other than hospital patients under the direction and sole control of the board’s hospital superintendents. Also that the petitioners 'be advised that the board’s policy admitted maternity cases to the hospitals and that such patients had the right to engage their own medical adviser to attend to them during their confinement.