MEDICAL OFFICER FOR LYTTELTON.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVII, Issue 11289, 8 June 1897, Page 3

MEDICAL OFFICER FOR LYTTELTON.

HIS SERVICES DISPENSED WITH. At the meeting of the Lyttelton Borough Council last night the question of retaining the services of the medical officer of health was reopened. The Mayor occupied the chair, and all the Councillors were in attendance. A number of ratepayers were present. Councillor Grubb moved the motion of which he had given notice, viz.—“ That the motion passed at tho last meeting of the Council relative to retaining the services of Dr Pairman be rescinded.” Councillor Webb seconded tho motion. Councillor Brice asked what objections Councillor Grubb had to the medical officer. • The Mayor said that Councillor Grubb had reserved his remarks to the close, when he could reply. Councillor Webb said that he would like to say a word or two. He could not be charged with changing his opinions. When the matter was first introduced he had said that they were taking a step that was not demanded. As time went on it was seen that the services of a medical officer were not required, and it was found that the money could he better spent in extending the drainage, &c. He had looked up the statistics, and he found that in 1891 the death rate was 11 per 1000, in 1892 9-2, in 1893 7‘B, in 1894 8'49, and in 1895 9’65. He bad been unable to get the whole of the figures relating to 1896, but during the early months of that year the rate was very low. Councillor Brice: The doctor was in charge then. Councillor Webb: Just so. He was appointed just when the town was in a most healthy state. But au agitation had been got up which led people to think that Lyttelton was unhealthy. Ho gave the doctor credit for attempting to do good work, but it was felt that the appointment was net called for by tho sanitary state of the town. He contended that the Council bad been doing good sanitary work, while from the records of the town it was found that £BOOO had been spent in drainage, yet they were charged with doing nothing towards improving the town’s sanitary condition. Those citizens who wanted the doctor had opposed the ext" ten of drains. (No!) Lyttelton was adl • situated, and in the winter months ot very little sun, and it was only to be xp ■ -ted that those in illhealth would s ffe a little. He did not’ want to go fuib in j the whole question, hut he would p nt ut that _£4 per week was spent in i mov ng rubbish from the town, and this wor was done before the doctor took cha ge. He was not parsimoniously bent upLiu saving the rates, hut he felt that if the money spent on the doctor were spent in extending the drainage system it would be better spent. The late Sanitary Committee had left things in abeyance so long that it was felt something had to he done, and they brought down a report on fowls. Ho intended to support the motion. Councillor Brice stated that he had but little to say. Councillor Webb had observed that there was no necessity for the medical officer; but he would refer them to the letters in the papers, which showed that the public wanted some improvements. Councillor AYebb had produced some figures showing the death rate, but he had not said a word about the sickness at the port. The figures quoted by Councillor Webb dealt with a period before the doctor’s appointment, hut , he had said nothing about the time when the doctor was at work. When referring to the removal of rubbish Councillor. Webb had not told them who had suggested the present method as an improvement upon the objectionable boxes. Then Councillor Webb had referred to the fowl by-law, but he appeared to forget that he himself had tried to stop the keeping of fowls in the blocks. He was of opinion that the ratepayers wanted the medical officer. (Councillor Webb: No.) They would see about that in September, when the election came round, and he (Councillor Brice) was firmly of opinion that they would say, “ We want no Councillor Webb.” He hoped the services of the doctor would be Councillor Owen moved as an amendment “That the whole question of the appointment of the doctor be deferred till after the September election.” There were three new Councillors to be elected at that time, and he thought that, as they were about equally divided, they should relegate the matter to the new Council. Councillor Hohden, in seconding the amendment, said that he was strongly in favour of keeping the doctor. He had heard no argument against the appointment except the paltry one of “ saving the rates.” He was of opinion that the small sum of £SO for the services of a duly qualified medical man was money well spent. He entirely denied the statement made by Councillor Webb that those councillors who voted for tbe doctor’s appointment had opposed the extension of the drainage. Councillor Webb seemed to think °that he was the one councillor Bitting at the table that could he trusted, but he (the speaker) thought the ratepayers should be allowed to express then opinions on the subject. Referring to the figures quoted by Councillor Webb, ho would remind them that at the time the doctor was appointed diphtheria was prevalent, the schools were closed, and there was a general state of alarm. The death rate was very little of a guide, as in many

cases diphtheria was not necessarily a fatal disease, hut it left so much in its train that it was the duty of the Board of Health to do its best to avert or modify it, and the best way to do that was to have the assistance of a medical man. Councillor Eadcliffe said that they had known Dr Pairman when he occupied a seat on the Council, and they knew him to be a most conscientious worker against dirt and disease. He held that the present satisfactory method of dealing with sanitary matters had emanated from Dr Pairman. He claimed to know the town as well as any man, and he had. no hesitation in saying that the trouble had been met only just in time. He contended that the figures quoted by Councillor Webb proved nothing. Had Councillor Webb gone to the school and looked up the attendancelJreeords ho would have found that the town had never passed through such a period of sickness as that between 1893-6. He denied that the Sanitary Committee, while he was chairman, had ever neglected any matters appertaining to the sanitary state of the town. He controverted the statement made by Councillor Webb that those favouring the appointment of the doctor were opposed to extending the drains. He had always supported drainage extension, and would always do so. He held that Dr Pairman had always discharged his duty without fear or favour, knowing as he did that he was doing the right thing. He hoped that in the best interests of Lyttelton the medical officer would be retained. Councillor Brown said that if he could conscientiously vote for the medical officer he would do so, but during his connection with the Sanitary Committee he had failed to see the need for such an appointment. Epidemics had come, and he supposed they would continue to come. They originated in a mysterious way, and he thought tire epidemic which they in New Zealand were suffering from was an epidemic of inspection. Tiro thing had reached its most absurd point when one of their most advanced papers had recently suggested an inspector for the dead so as to prevent burial of the living. This was the cruellest cut of all to tho doctors. He held that they could save the money, and reminded them that they had the extension of the drains through the reclaimed ground and other works to carry out. Councillor Dailey said that he was quite prepared to resign his seat and allow the ratepayers to decide the matter. Councillor Cook reminded the Council that in 1893 £‘ss 7s 6d had been paid to the doctors for reporting cases of disease. He reviewed the state of things which led up to tho appointment of the doctor, who, he contended, had done good work and greatly improved the sanitary condition of the town. It had been said that the work could be done by their foreman of works, but he (the speaker) contended that the foreman could not do the work so independently as a medical man. The doctor had condemned one of the classrooms in the school, while the Board of Education were attempting to force its use, and he hoped the parents of the town, in justice to their children, would support the Council in its action in this matter. The Mayor said that he felt called upon to justify his action, as his position had been so pointedly- alluded to. Referring to the money spent in 1893, and mentioned by Councillor Cook, he said that the medical men took advantage: of the Act, and charged 2s 6d for reporting each case._ The Act had now been made clear, and this feo could not he charged. He wished ■to know what had the doctors done. There was one thing he gave the doctor credit for, and that was showing up the neglect of the School Committee in allowing one of its class-rooms to get into such a state that it spread infection all over the town. He failed to see that much had been done on the recommendation of tho doctor. Certainly there were a few bits of drain seen to at his suggestion, which would have been done in any 1 case. He failed/to see that tho rate of progress during The past year had been greater than before,- in fact, it had been less because they had not the money to spend on the work. He was not afraid of the responsibility he was taking. He knew who had put him there and for what purpose, and the )ast byelection had also been won by Councillor Dailey on the same lines. Councillor Grubb replied, stating that he objected to the expenditure of the £SO, which could he spent on drainage. The amendment was then put, and was lost on the casting vote of the Mayor, Councillors Grubb, Brown, Webb and Dailey voting against, and Councillors Hobden, Eadcliffe, Cook and Brice voting for. The motion was then put and carried, the division list being the same.