DEATH OF A CHILD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23220, 18 June 1937, Page 7

DEATH OF A CHILD

"TREATMENT THE CAUSE"

DOCTOR'S ADMISSION AT INQUIRY

" UNCONSCIOUSLY MISLED CORONER"

(Per United Press Association)

NAPIER, June 17.

When the Hospital Inquiry Commission resumed, Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., announced that, following the conclusion of the evidence by the matron, the public would be admitted and the ban on the publication of names would be removed, except as regards the children concerned in the disease which was the cause of the inquiry, the parents and the nurses. . ■ Dr Foley (medical superintendent) said he did not say the disease was caused by medicine, but he certainly tried to " cushion over * the matter. He did say that medicine could cause irritation. There was a policy of non-disclosure. The child who died was dead when he arrived. The body was naked, and nothing existed to suggest that she had just been brought from a not bath. Witness told Dr Berry and the nurse that he would let the coroner know. Witness was upset. It seemed another blow for him. A post-mortem examination was held with witness's knowledge, but not with his consent. His impression was that the child had been "flogged" with bathing when it should not have been bathed at Witness said he described the child's death to the district coroner, whom he left with the impression that death was due to heart failure. Mr Mosley said that, if he himself had been aware of the whole facts, he would have ordered an inquest.

"NOT A TRUE CERTIFICATE" Dr Foley said the death certificate was very incomplete. It was not a true certificate. Had he known of the special treatment he would have insisted on an inquest. Dr Berry knew that heart failure was to be given as the cause of death. The post-mortem examination was unauthorised and was carried out by Dr Berry and witness. Witness, when asked if there was a conspiracy of silence by Dr Berry and himself, replied: " I don t think Dr Berry" told me all he should have." Death was due to hyperpyrexia, or exhaustion. Had he been in full possession of the facts as he now knew them, he would not have issued a death certificate. He unconsciously misled the coroner. Had he known all the facts he would have lived in holy fear of accident. Dr Berry had the last say. Had he known that no permission had been given for the post-mortem examination he would not have been there. The treatment and not the disease was the actuating cause of death. Dr Foley said that the sister neglected her duty in not reporting the hot bath treatment. It was unwise to introduce an untried system without the approval of the authorise father of the dead child said he desired an inquest to clear the matter up, but he was opposed to a post-mortem examination. He did not know at that time that the examination had been held. Mr A. E. Bedford, a member of the Hospital Board and the coroner, said that Dr Foley had told him the child had died suddenly at the hospital following a bath, and wanted to know if an inquest was necessary. Witness added: "He said the child had died of acute heart failure and congenital dislocation of the hips." Dr Berry had not told witness that the child had just come from a hot bath. Dr Berry was rather upset, but did not appear to 'be opposed to an inquest. This was the first time that witness had been approached by a medical man concerning an inquest. Mr Mosley: Did Dr Berry make any surprising statements?—No. Mr Mosley: Then the deduction may be safely left with the Royal Commission.

Witness stated that Dr Berry had confirmed Dr Foley's certificate, but had not asked permission to conduct a post-mortem examination. He considered that he should have been told of the hot baths or any special treatment which had been carried out on the child. CORONER'S POSITION

Mr Mosley said that, knowing that Mr Bedford was a member of the board, the doctors should have approached the official coroner, Mr J. Miller, S.M. Mr Foden: Their action was not prudent. Mr Mosley: It was more than not orudent. Of course, it is easy to be wise after the event, Mr Bedford, but it would have been prudent for you to have declined to deal with the case.

Mr Bedford: I thought at the time that it was a case of death due to natural causes.

Mr Mosley: But you see where all this has led.

Mr Bedford: Yes, I do now

Matron Croft said that the hospital had a maximum number of patients during the outbreak, but the staff had insufficient senior nurses. Junior nurses did not come in contact with the isolated patients. She had no knowledge that the baths were going to be given. She thought the doctors had conferred on the question. The heat baths should have been recorded. Witness did not know that the sister was keeping her own record, and that struck witness as an extraordinary proceeding. The linen caused much concern. Stains were caused by local treatment. An effort to remove the stains by a steam steriliser made them worse, and the sheets were then used only on the beds of the children affected. The sheets were clean, but not of good colour. The disinfectant had since been altered. The occurrence of lice on the children had been reported and checked.