DEATH OF GIRL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 79, 5 February 1944, Page 5

DEATH OF GIRL

CORONER’S CRITICISM QUESTIONING REFUSED BY HOSPITAL Auckland, Feb. 4. “This is a deliberate screen put up by the chairman of the hospital board, which is screening criminals,” said the coroner, Mr F. K. Hunt, at an inquest into th 6 death of a single girl, aged 17, who died in the Auckland Hospital on 19th December after being admitted suffering from the effects of an abortion. “If this practice of refusing to notify the police continues, it means that an abortionist can operate and simply send the patient to the Auckland Hospital for treatment,” added the coroner. “In view of my instructions from the board and my concern regarding my position in this type of case, I communicated with the chairman,” said the acting-medical superintendent. Dr. C. Gilberd. “He maintained that 1 should adhere to the decision previously given that 1 should not communicate with the police. “He considered it is a matter for common sense and not legislation,” re marked Mr Hunt. “Since when have the medical authorities had to go to the board for a direction on their conscience?” Dr. Gilberd replied that he was an employee of the board and was therefore responsible to it. “So that if a woman were admitted and said her husband was poisoning her, you would treat her till she died without informing the police?” asked Mr Hunt. Dr. Gilberd: I do not think so. Mr Hunt: You make a distinction then ? Dr. Gilberd: 1 have had instructions only on abortion cases. Witness said he understood that as a result of a similar type of inquest held recently, a circular had been sent to hospitals throughout New Zealand asking what procedure they adopted in such cases, and adding that investiga tions were being made by the Minister of Health. He said that in some cases an examination to obtain information was detrimental to the patient's health. That was understood, said Mr Hunt, but only one word about where the patient had been was required, and the board’s ridiculous ruling did not allow that question to be asked. It was a different case from a private practitioner respecting the confidences of a patient and private hospitals would not accept such cases. The Auckland Hospital was a public institution 30 ABORTION CASES A WEEK In answer to Mr Hunt, Dr. Gilberd said the greatest number of abortion cases treated at the hospital was about 30 a week, but all of these, of course, were not criminal abortions “Before the recent ruling, criminal abortions were notified.” said Dr. Gilberd, ‘and the police and I felt that if abortionists used infected instruments they should not be allowed to continue and that our women should be protected against that sort of thing.” However, there was no obligation to notify cases from a medical or legal point of view. “But there was no right to act as a screen,” said Mr Hunt. It was stated that when the practice of notifying the police was in operation a number of prosecutions had been secured. Evidence was given by a house surgeon at the hospital. Dr. R. H. Caughey, that the patient was admitted on 9th December. In answer to Mr Hunt, witness said the patient could have answered any questions during the time she was in hospital till 18th December, but she was never formally questioned No further evidence could be produced. said Detective-Sergeant Power. The girl’s parents knew nothing of the case till her admission to hospital. ‘"Die detective-sergeant in a previous similar case complained bitterly that if only information had been given investigations could have been made,” said Mr Hunt. “Two girls have now been allowed to die without any information at all.” In returning a verdict tha« deceased died from peritonitis following septic abortion Mr Hunt advised Dr. Gilberd to pay no attention to the hospital board. Neither it nor anyone else had the right to dictate to his conscience. These poisonous wells should be traced. as it was nothing but murder. Not only was a young life taken but nine times out of ten the mother was seriously injured. It was a most disgraceful state of affairs.—P.A.