A QUESTION OF ETIQUETTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13148, 10 April 1906, Page 3

A QUESTION OF ETIQUETTE.

THE HOSPITAL HONORARY STAFF.

At yesterday's meeting of the Hospital Board Mr. L. J. Bagnall submitted a letter from Dr. W. G. Scott referring to the elections to the honorary medical staff of the hospital. Dr. Scott stated that Dr. Hardie Neil (who was elected to the honorary staff) had written to tho chairman and members of the Mangere Road Board thanking them for the sympathy and assistance which the Board had uniformly accorded him on all occasions. " I feel," he (Dr. Neil) added, in his letter, "that my appointment as a member of the honorary staff is duo in a very largo, measure to the influence and support of your representatives upon the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board.". Dr. Scott forwarded a copy of this letter, and in reference thereto said: "I am quite unable to understand Dr. Neil's action. . . . One might surely question the right or propriety of any person presuming to read the secrets of the ballot, and still more, publishing comments thereon. You are at liberty to make use of this communication if you deem fit, in the interests of the hospital, the Board, or the public" added Dr. Scott. Mr. Bagnall said Dr. Scott's contention was a more serious matter than some of the members of the Board might be at first inclined to think. No doubt Dr. Neil was excited and elated oyer his election to the honorary' staff, but he went a little farther than was discreet in writing about it to t]ie Mangere Road Bond. He, (Mr. Bagnall) moved, "That the letter lie on the table."

Mr. W. R. Eloomfield seconded. Mr. A. Bruce observed that the Board should ignore communications that were not addressed to it. If the members accepted every letter addressed to individual members there would be no finality to the business, and no end to the discussions. Mr. G. Knight held that, the letters could not bo considered, as they were of a private nature, and had nothing whatever to do with Hie Board, nor it with them. The Chairman (Mr, . John McLeod) said that if the Board was going to allow doctors fo communicate direct with individual- members, he ooitld not say where its business would drift to. The matter was one for the British Medical Association to deal with— not the Hospital Board. "It, is a, medical squabble, and the association should deal with it if they think proper to do so," concluded Mr. McLeod. Mr. Bagnall. reminded the Board that the letter was from an old and honoured member of the honorary staff. He contended that any member of the Board ha.d a right to bring up any matter relating to the Board's affairs.

The Chairman then put the motion, "That the lottors be received." This was lost, four members voting for and five against the motion.