The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 15, 1875.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 4552, 15 September 1875, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 15, 1875.

A resolution was recently passed by the House of Representatives, on the motion of Mr Bradshaw, to the effect that it is undesirable that medical men in active public practice should be appointed Coroners. There was scarcely any debate, and the few remarks made were mostly irrelevant. The Native Minister stated that the opinions of the Government accorded with those of the mover of the resolution. These opinions, and the arguments used to enforce them, are somewhat peculiar. We presume that by public practice Mr Bradshaw means what is usually termed private practice; but setting this aside, it appears to us that the resolution really affirms that medical men should not be selected by the Government to fill the office of Coroner. This is undoubtedly the spirit of the resolution, for retired medical men are not by any means numerous in the Colony. The medical profession is, theoretically, one which does not permit its members to amass fortunes ; and, practically, we find that medical practitioners fall in harness, or that those few who are enabled to rest from their labour in the enjoyment of a competency, have arrived at such an age that they are incapacitated from holding any important public office. Assuming, therefore, that the resolution aims at excluding medical practitioners from the Coronership, the question arises—On what grounds this exclusion is justified, and why it is proposed to reverse the general practice and to act in opposition to public opinion in this matter ? That public opinion favours the holding of the Coroner’s office by medical men Las been clearly shewn in the Old Country. For years past there has been a struggle between the legal and medical professions for the possession of the Coroner’s Court, and the Doctors have won the day; it is seldom that any other than a medical man is elected to the office, Coroners in England being elected by the freeholders. In the face of this hasty and inconsiderate statement of opinion by the Government, we ai'e inclined to regret that the office is not electoral in this Country also.

The duties of the Coroner’s Court are to inquire into all cases of sudden death, or of death attended with circumstances of suspicion, and to endeavour to form a conclusion as to the cause of such death, whether hy the course of disease or accident, or by foul play. In very many cases the most important evidence is that of a medical witness, and it is necessarily couched in terms and has relation to conditions which cannot possibly be appreciated by the uninitiated. A medical Coroner alone is capable of understanding such technical evidence, and of directing the inquiry to such points as are of the greatest importance. Further, a discretion is left with the Coroner to omit the holding of inquests in cases where the evidence is clear that the cause of death was natural, but it requires a specially educated mind to weigh the circumstances, and to decide whether it be probable that they are in accord with the presumption of death from natural causes. We feel sure that the public will lose confidence in the Coroner’s Court if it be directed by any other than a medical man. Mr Bradshaw did not, however, dispute that medical men were most fitted to be Coroners; his chief argument appeared to be that the living are neglected while the Coroners are in attendance upon the dead. In this light, it looks to us something like an interference with the liberty of the subject. Why not pass resolutions that medical men shall not be eligible for election as members of any representative assembly, and that they be precluded from holding any public office P Indeed, if the argument be a good one, its application will be very wide. Another statement adduced in support of the resolution, was that the Coroners were enabled to compete on advantageous terms with other medical men. The process of reasoning by which this conclusion was arrived at is not patent, if it be true that Coroners’ patients are neglected and come to grief, while they, the Coroners, are engaged with the dead, we should have thought them hardly likely to derive advantage from the fact. Ferhaps, however, Mr Bradshaw is so unkind as to insinuate that as a general rule, patients benefit by a little neglect on the part of their medical attendants, the catastrophes to which he alludes being exceptional. In onr judgment, it is the duty of the Government, in making an appointment, to enquire who is most suitable for the office and most capable of filling it to the advantage of the community, and not to concern themselves with . local or professional jealousies. Another honorable Member stated that in bis belief inquests were frequently held unnecessarily, for the sake of the fees. This is a grave and sweeping accusation, and should not have been lightly, made. It does , not appear whether this cupidity was attributed to medical Coroners in particular; we presume not. It is, however, an argument against the fee system only, and not against the appointment of ! medical Coroners. As for the honoj-able

Member’s opinion, that the duties of the Coroner’s Court should be performed by the Resident Magistrate, it was wholly beside the question and need not be discussed. It is much to foe regretted that resolutions should be allowed to pass the House, which are opposed to general custom and to Public Opinion, and which are entirely unsupported by reasonable argument. It is the duty of the Government to check indiscretions of this nature, and to insist that interference with departmental matters should be justified by cogent reasoning. We can hardly believe that Sir Donald M'Deaa gave expression to the deliberate opinion of the Government* and we feel sure that when they consider the matter, they will come to the conclusion that they have made a mistake in accepting this rash proposition.