TAKAKA COTTAGE HOSPITAL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 11 September 1937, Page 11

TAKAKA COTTAGE HOSPITAL

(To The Editor] Sir, —I must thank your correspon- j dent “Onlooker” for his letter on the above question. It is an excellent epitome of the anti-cottage hospital case. And though I cannot commend j him for the tactics employed, I con- j gratulate him nevertheless for the excellent service he has thereby done to the cottage hospital cause. The more inextricably he becomes entangled in the maze of his own reasoning, the I more clearly he illustrates the poverty of argument with which he is equip- j ped; and when “suggestion” and “in- j ference” and “reflection” is used in- j stead of argument, I know that no, argument is available; and when facts are distorted or mis-statements made-

I know that he is making a desperate throw on the chance that I might not know any different anyway. Thus when unable to deny that there is a lack of “service” which is the very foundation of our movement, he ingeniously endeavours to undermine the cause by averring that it has not arisen from the “lack of service” he admits, but “from the quarrel of two individuals” (as if the Health Department would recommend the establishment of a cottage upon such an absurd basis), and then goes on to devote 18 lines of his letter to an effort to find a means Of inducing the doctor into providing this “service” at his private hospital. How I do not mind anyone lauding the private hospital to the skies “washing and extras included”; but why, 1 ask, try to inveigle the doctor into

swallowing something he does not want He gave up the subsidy which insisted upon service its acceptance obliged him to perform. Why not establish a cottage hospital and, as the DirectorGeneral of Health said in his letter to the Board, “free the Board from dependance upon private institutions which may thus be closed at the caprice of the owners”? " Neither is it a question for the county ratepayers only. The Government subsidises the rates collected to the extent of 24 shillings to the pound, and as everybody contributes to the National exchequer, the question of a cottage hospital is everybody’s concern. Nor do I like to think that there is in Takaka any ratepayers, “with soul so dead” as to begrudge his mite towards what is considered by the Health authorities as necessary for the welfare of the community.

“Onlooker” expatiates on the propriety of “accepting defeat gracefully.” Instead of accepting the defeat of the public meeting gracefully, from the seclusion of an assumed name he indulges in a veritable “unter-see-boot” campaign calculated to discredit the victory achieved; and, unable to tinker with the votes, endeavours at least to minimise the effect by reflecting upon the honesty and integrity of the scrutineers who conducted the voting. A more ungraceful way of accepting defeat could not be imagined. I am personally acquainted with two of them and any suggestion that these

men could have conducted the voting incorrectly is quite unthinkable. Both indignantly repudiate the suggestion that voting papers were handed to children. lam not acquainted with the third but should think that his position of trust should indicate that he too is a person who might be expected to do the correct thing. If your correspondent, however, knows of a boy of 12 who received a voting paper, it

is his duty to divulge his name so that the blame, if any, might be apportioned. If he cannot see his way clear to do this he should apologise for the unwarranted reflection made. Truly j “visitors,” viz., an organised contingent ! from the Collingwood district, invaded i the meeting to do battle against 1 “Franco’s” forces, but notwithstanding ' these “foreign legionaries” the private . hospital “loyalists” were routed by i nearly two to one. How this detracts ; from the glory of the victory, as “Onlooker” infers, I do not know. But our friend “Pancho” makes a last desperate throw. To make things in Takaka look “not so bad” he makes conditions in South Westland look very much worse: no service, not a doctor in that vast stretch of country between Hokitika and Jackson’s Bay. “Sufferers have to be taken to Hoki- ! tika before they can get a doctor, etc.” i Though two wrongs do not make a i right, I am quite prepared to allow this —the only definite statement in his letter —to act as the standard of reliability upon which the rest of his 'effusion might be judged. Now it hapj pens that a friend of mine is secretary of the Westland Hospital Board and he assures me that so far from there | being no services, that there is a doctor at Wataroa, subsidised to the extent of £SOO a year, who two days a week visits other settlements, an emergency bed or dressing station at Wahika, another at Bruce Bay, and that another is to be set up at Jacksons Bay; that two maternity homes with emergency bed are being erected, one at Wahika and another at Bruce Bay; that an excellent aeroplane service is available to transport the doctor to the sufferer or the sufferer to the hospital if need be; and that a South Westland Medical Association has been formed to look after the interests of that district. He tells me

that the policy of the Westland Board is “that wherever the people are, and service needed, that service must be •provided, and even if the ratepayers cannot afford it, it must be provided just the same.” He said that he has been in Takaka and that in his opinion “we certainly should have a cottage hospital here.” So much for the lack of service in South Westland. In concluding this correspondence I wish to thank you, sir, for the privilege you have so generously accorded me, and the indulgence shown, which I can assure you is much appreciated by us.—l am etc. JOSEPH P. CARMINE. Hon. Sec. Takaka Citizens Committee Takaka, Bth September.