CHEST CASES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22353, 26 February 1936, Page 14

CHEST CASES

PREFERENCE DESIRED BOARD MEMBERS' VIEWS { OPPOSITION TO REPORT The fact that the Staff Committee had not recommended the immediate provision of a chest hospital was regarded unfavourably by several members of the Auckland Hospital Board in questioning Mr. F. Mucky aftor tho committee's report on general building policy had been submitted to the board last night, In the course of comment it was revealed that tho cheat hospital, which the board has been proposing to build for some months, is really to provide sanatorium accommodation. Mr. E H. Potter asked Mr. Mucky whethor the board would not bo well advised to proceed immediately with its plans for a chest hospital. "Any other of the auxiliaries mentioned in the report would provide more relief for accommodation than t lie chest hospital," Mr. Mucky replied. The question was raised again later by Mr, W. G. Mulholland, who said the board was spending large sums in sending tuberculosis patients to southern sanatoria. Term Not Defined "The difficulty is that we had no definition of what the board meant by a chest hospital," Mr. Macky said. "We had to define the term for ourselves and wo did so in the sense that it is known to medical men. If we had been told that tho board wanted a sanatorium as well as a chest hospital we would have altered our recommendations accordingly." The chairman, Mr. W. Wallace: Dr. McDowell, as the board's tuberculosis officer, know we wanted to obviate theexpense of sending patients to outsido sanatoria, Mr. Macky: If you call it a chest hospital and make it a sanatorium a degrco of opprobrium still attaches. Mr. G. T. Parvin said a chest hospital should take preference over a. surgical block in any rebuilding scheme. It was unfair to patients to send them on the tedious 500-mile journey to Waipukurau. "1 have been three years on the board," said Mrs. M. M. Dreaver, "and I do not know how many building plans I have seen in that time. We decided to build a chest hospital for the relief of tuberculosis cases. Wo called it a chest hospital at the suggestion of the last Government, which did not appear to want the word sanatorium to be used." Differenco in Institutions Mr, Macky said the committee had dealt with the question of building policy as a whole, and not merely with individual buildings. "We have defined a chest hospital as we think it would best serve the community," he added. ■ "We have discussed its requirements and the qases it would cater for, as they are known to modern medical science, but not from tho point of view of sanatorium treatment. You cannot combine the two." Discussing tho report generally, Mr. Macky said the committee had largely confined its attention to inside working. Questions of bricks and mortar could best be left to the architect. The committee had attempted to provide data on which the board could consult its architect and go ahead on a comprehensive plan. It took the view that no brick or stone should go up on the present site that would have to come down. As it was, the bulk of the existing buildings ought to come down. The Rev. W. C. Wood: If we could got an earthquake to shake the whole lot down we should know where to start. "It would bo impossible for us to scrap buildings, as is suggested here," said Mr. Wallace. "We have to remember that we have been hampered by lack of funds in the past." Comment by Architect > "The position at which the committee arrived," said Mr. Macky, "is that the board should not spend a £lO note on anything that does not form part and parcel of a complete scheme to replace the present buildings. To put extensions on to an existing building and then replace the wholo lot in ten years' time would be useless." The board's architect, Mr. J. Farrell, said the committee's report gave him a valuable basis on which to work. He had prepared a rough sketch of a proposed Iny-out of new buildings and would continue to co-operate with the committee to secure the best planning for a complete hospital building to replace the present collection of separate structures. On the motion of Mr. Wallace the board received the report and expressed its thanks to the committee for the immense amount of work it had devoted to the whole question.