AGE AND EFFICIENCY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19800, 27 May 1926, Page 10

AGE AND EFFICIENCY.

HOSPITAL BOARD’S DISCUSSION. APPOINTMENTS TO STAFF. (Pkr United Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH. May 26. _ Se ago of doctors in relation to their ency was a feature of a discussion which took place at the meeting of the North Canterbury Hospital Board to-day, when a by-law was altered to give the lioard power to reappoint a member of the honorary staff after 15 years’ service. Bylaw 16 of the North Canterbury Hospital Board reads: ‘Retiring members of the honorary staff are not to he eligible for reelection until such time as they have served for 15 years, or until they are 65 years of age.” . , In accordance with notice given by Mr H. J. Otley, the Chairman moved that the words “15 years” be deleted, and that 60 years be inserted instead of 65 years. Mr Otley said that the present by-law did not give power to the hoard to elect a man after 15 years. As far as 60 years was concerned, it was felt that at 60 years it was time for a member of the staff to make room for someone elso. of thfe best servants of this board, said Mr Otley, “have been on the staff for 15 years, or nearly so, and it will be a loss to the hospital if they cannot be reappointed.’ The Rev. C. L. Carr said that he would have to oppose the motion with regret. The tendency of the change would be to keep out new blood. It was realised that in some branches a man’s best years were between 35 and 50. The new bydaw would tend to create a close corporation in the profession, it was now known that brilliant young men were coming forward, and the board might not be able to place on its honorary staff a young man of rare brilliance because of the proposal. borne senior men, because of pressure of work could not keep abreast of the times. it might be suggested that 20 years would be a better term, but tire best years were between 35 and 50. If it were made 45 or 50 it meant making the staff too old, ihe junior men were opposed to the change, as no position w'ould be open to them until they were 50 years of age. Some of the senior members had had a fair run and had the opportunity of enjoying the advantages and equipment which the hospital offered. It would be gracious of some ot the senior members to allow other men to enjoy those privileges. That would be to the advantage of the board, the hospital, and the profession. The younger men wer e in touch with the remarkable strides made in pathological diagnosis. He moved that the present by-law stand. The Rev. J. K. Archer said that he was impressed by Mr Carr s remarks. He spoke of a young doctor who had travelled abroad and studied the latest ideas. He was a man whose services should not be lost. Mr Archer was in favour of having a chance of utilising the services of such a man. He was in favour of the present rule, but making the age 60 instead of 60. Mr W. E. Leadley was also impressed with Mr Carr’s arguments, but said Mr Carr seemed'to be putting up skittles to knock them down. Mr Carr; Not at all. , . Mr Leadley said that it was hard to refuse reappointment to a man after lu veara. if the board had not the courage to give precedence to a younger and better man then the board had no right to functlCThe Chairman said that he had a duty to the patients. All he asked was the right to appoint a man beyond the time at present allowed. He said that the laboratory was used not only by the young men, but it was used extensively by the older men. He would not allow anyone to practise on the patients for the benefit of the doctors. He had the utmost faith in the honorary staff, and said that any voung man with brilliance would forge his way to the top. When a man who had served a long term was still.at die top of his form the board should have the right to retain him. The motion was earned by 12 votes to seven. _____