ASHBURN HALL ASYLUM.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1263, 14 May 1896, Page 18

ASHBURN HALL ASYLUM.

The report of the Conimis-ieii of Knquir.v into the genera! management of lie A si) bum Hall Asylum and the treatment of Macalister, who committed suicide there son.e time j-ince, statts that on tho night ot the arrival of MfiC<i'i.-ter at tli-> a yluni ilVi.'i Dc ember; I." w,js improperly locked up alone in a small bedroom, where he had the means of injuring himself, although his suicidal mania was known to the keepers. One of the keepers, .Mr Hume, certainly led Macalistor's relations to understand that ho would be placed in the charge of an experienced attendant, Mr Scam, but when the latter left, Macalister was placed in charge of a totally inexperienced attendant, Mr Gillespie, who slept in the same room with him. Gillespie carried a pocket-knife, and knew that Macalister was aware oi it. Notwithstanding this, Gillespie on each morning went

from the bedroom to tho lavatory, leaving .Macalister alone, and also leaving tho knife in one of the pockets of his clothes within reach of the patient. With this knife Macalister committed suicide on the 11th February. There can bo no question, states the report, of the gross carelessness of Gillespie and also of tho chiefattendant Campbell, who should have soon that he (Gillespie) did his duty properly. In justice to Gillespie, however, it must be said that he appears to have been usually most kind and attentive to the patient.

No charge of unskilful treatment; can bo sustained against Drs Brown and Alacdonald, who attended Macalister at his death. All that skill could do was done; but tho caso was hopeless from the first. The only ''unkind treatment" proved is that on ono occasion Macalister was brought out with other patients, both male and female, to be photographed. The photographer happened to be acquainted with him, and refused to include him in the sketch. It is hardly necessary, the report continues, to point out the grave impropriety of allowing photographs to be taken of patients who have been placed in this asylum at considerable expense in order that their terrible malady may bo treated in strict privacy. With respect to the general status of tho asylum, Drs Truby King, Burns and Fookcs, gave strong evidence in its favour, both as to the management and as to tho fitness of ! tho building for its present purpose. Two gentlomcn who had relatives eonfined there testified as to tho kindness with which these patients were treated, and their contentment with their position. Tho only grounds of complaint to be inferred from tho evidence of the medical witnesses appeared to be tho want of night attendants, and of a telephone to Dunedin. It seems that in tho absence of a special arrangement every male patient in Ashburn Hall is locked up at night in his separate bedroom and left there alone until the morning, unless ho makes such a disturbance as to waken tho warder. This varies materially fiom tho practice in the asylums under Government control. As to the telephone, it may bo questioned whether any house should bo licensed as a private asylum, if it bo, liko Ashburn Hall, threo and a quarter miles from a town, unless an approved medical practitioner is to reside in it. But if such a house bo sj licensed, then most assuredly tho means of summoning a surgoon by telephone should bo provided. With these exceptions, tho evidence all wont to show that the asylum was well conducted aud tho patients well treated, nor was any case of neglect proved except that of Macalister. It appears also that tho congestion of tho Government asylums has been relieved by tho existence of Ashburn Hall. Tho report (which is signed by District Judge Ward) goes on to bring under tho notice of tho Government the curious disregard of tho Lunatics Act of 1882 displayed in the management of this asylum. By section 73 of that Act tho notice to bo given to tho Colonial Secretary by an applicant for a license to keep a house for tho reception of lunatics must contain not only a full doscrip tion of tho applicants, but also that of a medical practitioner, who is to bo the medical officer of such house. In the first application of Messrs Alexander and Hume, dated lf)th Soptember, 1882, the former is named as tho intended medical officer. It was probably believed by the then Colonial Secretary i that both of tho applicants would resido at Ashburn Hall as required by section 80 of the Act, but by this section no license is of any validity unless the keepers or keeper of the house licensed reside therein ; and tho house be visited as directed in the Act by a medical practitioner—that is, in tho present caso, throe times a week. Tho keepers of tho house are the persons licensed to keep it, and unless specially authorised by statute—as in the section 77, which refers solely to houses containing over a hundred lunatics—they can not delegate their powers.to or devolve their responsibilities on another person. Dr Alexander has never resided at Ashburn Hall, from this fact alone, says the report, it follows that the license granted jointly to himself and to Mr Hume lui* hud no validity whatever. Judge Ward ones not foci called upon to offer any opinion on the question whether any private asylums should bo retained, but, he adds, if the law respecting piivafc us> linns remains unrepealed, its provisions should at hast be stringently cn-

In tin' cour-e of .-otue observations supplied lo the lion \V. ('. Walker, I r Madircgor, ].,.,;>.., I.orof ||.. : .piUl.s and Asyl mis, points .■ni'iha! tin liccii.-c to Dr Alexander and Mr lliniM: wa.-> originally i.-sued long' before he iDr i\l '.c' lieg ■>>■] had anything to do will) the rlcpartniMit. and that the then Government ami all their responsible officers evidently acted in tin- belief that icclion 77 h.d nothing to do v.ith any licensed h« u e which did not contain more than 100 patients. Their view was that section 78 was the ono applicable to a house containing less than 50, aud the only provision is that such a house shall be visited three times a week by a medicil practitioner. He submits that section j-j.j .-hows th.it only one of the partners need be resident, while section 78 shows that the medical officer is meant to be a visiting one.