HOSPITAL AFFAIRS.

Northland Age, Volume 26, Issue 9, 23 June 1926, Page 4

HOSPITAL AFFAIRS.

(To the Editor) Sir, —“When rogues tall out honest men come to their own,” but when doctors disagree, the prospect for the honest man sick is not so pleasant. Here we have the unedifying spectacle of two doctors in disagreement. It would be invidious to attempt any comparison of their respective attainments, suffice it to say that the one enjoys the confidence and respect of all who have been under his charge, while the other, although a comparative newcomer amongst us, has by his meticulous care and unremitting promptitude made himself valued throughout the countv.

Now what is the issue ? In effect a charge by the one, a private practitioner, against the other, the medical superintendent of our County Hospital, of refusing necessary professional assistance in the performance of a surgical operation conducted in the hospital. What evidence is there to support the charge ? The statement of the private practitioner, together with a supporting statement by the medical superintendent’s assistant, a lady doctor. And what evidence in rebuttal of the charge ? The state ment of the medical superintendent, senior of the two former by very many years’ practice and professional experience. What followed ? The operation was successful and the patient was discharged The private practitioner laid a charge with the Hospital Board against the medical superintendent, and the medicaUsupermtendent tendered his resignation as a protest against alleged undue pressure exerted to induce him to subordinate his professional opinion to that of his junior. Here appears to be a dispute requiring for its decision the services of competent medical authorities qualified to judge how far, if at all, the charge should be accepted. To the ordinary* layman, on account of its purely technical considerations, the matter would have presented extraordinary difficulties. But the Hospital Board (composed mainly of farmers and naturally unaccustomed to weighing the value of conflicting medical opinions) without recourse to ffiigher authorities, found the charge proved and accepted the resignation of the medical superintendent. Subsequently there occurred an opportunity for the exercise of more moderate counsel in the suggestion DirectorGeneral of Health that the Board ask the medical superintendent to reconsider his resignation. This suggestion was coupled with an expression of high appreciation of the officer in question, and it is little short of amazing that after this lead, the chairman of the Board should by his casting vote have secured its rejection. That the medical superintendent declined to wait on the Board and submit to being examined by them before a public audience is not surprising. The prestige of the profession is somewhat higher than that of a petty contractor, and the action desired by the Board, would have involved a sacrifice of professional dignity which I believe no medical man would have conceded in the circumstances. The Board has now by its uncompromising attitude, alienated the support of a considerable section of the public, which feels that the treatment accorded to the medical superintendent is in no wise related fro either justice or equity. Even now at the eleventh hour, is it not possible for the Board to take the matter in review ? The members have, no doubt since their decision reflected considerably on the result, and probably if a fresh vote could be taken a more satisfactory verdict would be the mult. The plea fora reconsideration of the matter is the jpqre justified, when one remarks the obvious lack of unanimity displayed by the Board in its vote. I am, etc., J. C. Marsh. | Kaitaia, June 22, 1926.