HOSPITAL REFORM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21167, 27 April 1932, Page 14

HOSPITAL REFORM.

Sir, —The cause of democracy and fair play might have been better served by Mr. llowitt and the Auckland Hospital Board if the discussion on the proposals of the Wellington Hospital Board had been made available to the public, as in every other instance where these proposals have been discussed by a public body. There can be no constructive criticism, the lack of which is deplored by Mr. Howitt, when the only material offered is a provocative ex cathedra statement which, in itself, breathes an arrogance, an assumed superiority, an monopoly of right' thinking and an intolerance to the considered opinion of others hardly to be expected from a responsible public body. As Mr. Wallace's name was the only one that appeared in the first, report and as he has put himself on record on a previous occasion as supporting a somewhat similar view he cannot altogether evade the responsibility of the manner in which "the presentation was made to the public. As chairman of the Auckland Board, Mr. Wallace had every right to stress his own point of view strongly and it would be considered by no reasonable person, least of all by Mr. Wallace himself, as personal criticism, when the assumption is made that he inspired the resolution. No one who knows Mr. Wallace's record would suggest for a moment that he would allow his own views to influence in any way his conduct of a discussion at a Hospital Board** conference in which ha was in the chair, even though he had every right to stress those views in his own board. That he did not do so showed a fine spirit, but it was unnecessary as a guarantee of his fairness as president of ilia Hospital Boards' Association. It would have given, however, a much better impression if the board, having decided to be secret in one matter, had been secret i n all- There should have been either free publicity given to the discussion or a resolution r.f such ft nature should not have been published. Tho question as to the letter from the Hospital Boards' Association and its irregularity should have been made plain at the meeting, and it should have been stated that according to tho rules of the association it could not bo considered as offering the official views of that body. Mr. \\ allace would have beer, the last to see carping, personal criticism i" letter. His attitude was well expressed by himself at the Hospitals' Association Conference in 1929. "As lone as I am connected with public hospital administration, I intend to speak out, and I don't care whether I offend or please. The real spirit of Mr. llowitt's letter is contained in the last phrase Auckland has had to fight these centralising schemes from their very inception, etc." Where does the atinospher# of tolerance of other people's views so prized by the writer appear in such expressions ? As for freedom of speech, tha Wellington Board not only desires fie® Horn of speech but publication of spec c j and not unsupported, aggressive a" 1 intolerant resolutions; and those of {l4 public who are interested in efficient bo-" pital service and the still larger who are directly influenced by the i nrl dencc of taxation are unreasonable ono'i and undemocratic enough to the Wellington Board, both i# e wishes and their; example. „ _ B. CAVBBZLL. BEaftl