HOSPITAL INQUIRY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19316, 31 October 1924, Page 6

HOSPITAL INQUIRY.

THE BBYOE CASE. TREATMENT OF FEMALE PATIENT. (Pbb United Phess AssociattohO PALMERSTON NORTH, October 20. To-day saw the opening of a Commission of Inquiry into what has come to be known as the Bryce case, when Mr K, Page, S.M., sat at Palmerston North Courthouse for the purpose of inquiring into the treatment accorded Miss Jessie Bryce in connection with her admission to Palmerston North Hospital in June, 1923. Mr Taylor, for Mr J. J. Bryce, father r,t the patient concerned, explained that com- . plainant was not responsible for'the delay occurring in opening the investigation| Miss Bryce had been admitted to the public hospital on a signed order from Dr Cameron, of Feilding. It was the wish of her parents that she should go to the public hospital, Mrs Bryce considering that better treatment could be secured there because of the better equipment, while Mr Bryce insisted on such a course because he was opposed to drafting by-the medical profession of patients into whatever institutions they thought desirable. Prior to the girl's going into hospital Dr E. C. Harnett, a member of the honorary staff, had objected to her admission, though he declined to furnish objections in writing. The girl was admitted, but later discharged, though very ill and unable to walk, and was removed to Feilding on tne following morning and operated on in a private hospital for appendicities. About 30 days later complications developed, and Miss Bryce was ill for many months as a result. "It is hoped," said counsel, "that something will be done to stop the present system of drafting, for it is possible for grav» wrongs to take place if a medical man caa determine who is to go to a private and who to a public hospital. When a patient is admitted then proper treatment should be administered. No member of the staff should be able to say "Xou have no rign» here.' There U room for grave abuse if the present system is to be permitted without some steps towards remedy, and it may result in impairing a patient's health. , A callous refusal to operate may even tesult in the death of some member of the community. Is the- medical superintendent helpless if a member of the honorary staff says 'Hands off'? The action of the Hospital Board in refusing to grant an inquiry does not inspire public confidence. After the matter . had beun determined by the board, after it bad promised to hear Mr Bryce, the latter took the matter to the Department of Health. Later the question was taaeu up by the Kiwitea County. Council, and thia inquiry was the result'' In giving evidence, Jessie Bryce described her admission to the hospital. Sha was admitted on June 9, 1923, and dis- . charged three days later without the operation, which had been stated by Dr Cameron to be essential. Dr Barnett had seen her on three days, and suggested digestive trouble. Witness had no complaints as to the treatment accorded her in hospital, only in respect to Dr Barnett and the operation. Her mother 'informed her thst Dr Barnett was not going to operate, and there was no nse witness staying. In his evidence; John Joseph Bryce stated that when he approached D> Barnett for an admission order, the latter demurred. After her admission on Dr Cameron's order, be was unaware of any intention to have the girl removed from the institution. Witness then detailed the prolonged negotiations with the Hospital Board and thte Health Department. Witness declared that the hospital belonged to the people, and all had a right to use it. It was built from public funds, and maintained by what he called a class tax. The man on the land paid rates towards it, and in addition the subsidy came out of funds to which the same ratepayer contributed largely. Emily Jesisie Bryce, mother of the girl, described the removal, of the girl from hospital and her dissatisfaction when told by Dr Barnett that an operation was unnesesary. James Neil Farmers, secretary of the board at that time, also gave evidence. He denied that the reason adduced in a letter written by witness—in which he stated that if the board , reprimanded Dr Barnett it would be without an honorary etaff, as other memberij of* the honorary staff had expressed confidence in Dr Barnett—was the real reason why the board bad reviewed the case in Bryce's absence. Witness could not explain the absence of a clause in the resolution passed by the hoard, as forwarded to Mr Bryce, stating that if the latter were not satisfied he could come, before the committee of the board. He was unable to say whether he was instructed to omit that portion of the reso-v lutiou. James K. Stevens, of Palmerston North '(cousin of Mrs Bryce), gave evidence that Dr Barnett ashed him if they were takftig Miss Bryce away, and witness replied in the affirmative, adding that he understood an operation . was unnecessary. Dr Barnett had replieU, "An operation is necessary, and that urgeutly." Witness asked: "Why don't you operate?" and was reminded that he must remember that the staff gave its services free. The doctor then went away laughing. Witness insisted, under cross-examina-tion by counsel, that his version of the in- ■ terview was correct. Evidence was also given by J. H. Vincent, a member of the Hospital Board, and ]>r G. Phillipp, of Feilding. Dr Phillipp en id the finance of patients sometimes affected his attitude in granting or refusing a certificate of admission to the hospital. FAT-iMERSTON NORTH, October 30. The inquiry was continued this morning. Trior to the hearing of further evidence Dr Campbell Begg\(Wellington), representing the New Zealand branch of the British >. Medical Association, announced that he v.-;is appearing on behalf of the association relative to clause C of the order of reference which called upon the Commission to inquire generally into the practice and powers of flic honorary medical staff of the Hospital Board relative to admission, treatment, and discharge of patients. Dr Begg stated he had been sent to the inquiry bv the Medical Association to watch clause C, and ho-would like his Worship's ruling whether the honorary medical staff could be regarded as a separate entity in regard to the whole of the question involved as to hospital administration generally. To assist the Commission in this respect he asked leave to call Drs Wylie and Bett and other members of the honorary medical eitaff of the Palmerston North Hospital. The Magistrate said he ; would like to have some such assistance as suggested by Dr'Begg. He would hear Drs Wylie and Bett. Further evidence was then heard from witnesses on behalf of Mr Bryce. Dr D. H. Bett stated that last year approximately 500 operations, excluding those 1 for eyes, tonsils, and adenoids had been performed by the honorary staff at the Palmerston North Hospital. At the lowest computation these operations, if performed in private practice, would realise £ls 15s each. Witness endorsed the opinion of other doctors that an operation to Miss Bryce was unnecessary. He usually accepted the word of a patient regarding his or her financial position. Witness said he would welcome the transfer of the responsibility to the secretary of the Hospital Board as to the financial status of a patient. To the Commissioner (Mr Page, S.M.I : He considered it his duty to the profession to refuse admission solely on the grounds of ability to pay for private treatment. Mr D. S. Wylie expressed a similar opinion in regard to free treatment of those who could pay, and said he had refused permission to entrr tho hospital in such cases by transferring the onus on the hospital authorities. Witness approved of Dr Barnett's action in respect to Miss Bryce. The case was adjourned till to-morrow morning.