OTAGO HOSPITAL BOARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 3954, 24 December 1929, Page 66

OTAGO HOSPITAL BOARD.

MONTHLY MEETING. Hie Otago Hospital Board held its monthly meeting on Thursday evening; present: Messrs W. E. S. Knight (chairman), J. W. Scurr, G. Gallaway, A. F. Quelch, W. B. Morgan. W. M Lennan. Dr Newlands, Mrs Walter Ross, Mrs Marshall Macdonald, and Miss Runciman. A motion of sympathy was passed with the Rev. V. G. Bryan-King in the recent death of his wife. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES’ MEMBERS. A deputation from the Friendly Societies’ Council waited on the board with regard to the rate of payment for benefits for members of friendly societies in the hospital. The question has been before the board for some time. Appreciation was expressed of the concessions allowed to members of friendly societies, and the board was asked to give further consideration to the matter of maintenance charges. Would the board consider a proposal on the same lines as those existing between societies and the North Canterbury Hospital Board—payment per bed occupied, that the same average as was collected from the general public per annum. The chairman said the matter would receive full consideration at the hands of the Finance Committee. CORRESPONDENCE. Messrs Walker and Anderson (solicitors) wrote notifying the board of a legacy of £2OO to the Hospital under the will of Mrs J. A. Blakeley, of Dunedin.— Received with thanks. The Minister of Health (Mr A. J. Stallworthy) wrote stating that he had caused inquiry to be made into the question of the liability of the Prisons De partment in respect to the maintenance in the Hospital of William Braumann, a prisoner. He did not think it could be rightly urged that liability should be extended to cover cases such as that of Brauman, and he regretted to have to say, therefore, that he could not intervene to further the board’s claim against the Prisons’ Board.—lt was resolved to wait on the Attorney-general with regard to the matter. The medical director wrote reporting the gift of a wireless set from an anonymous donor, per the Rev. V. G. Bryan King, to the \\ akari Hospital.—Received with thanks. The secretary of the Nurses and Midwives’ Registration Board, Wellington, wrote stating that it had been bi ought under the notice of the board that in some training schools for maternity nurses the probationers were not being given special training in invalid cookery, and it was decided to write to training schools advising that the board required ■every maternity nurse to receive instruction in the cooking and preparation of food. The secretary of the South Otago Hospital Board* wrote stating that his board had had under consideration the giving to probationer nu’-ses an opportunity to have the final six months of their third year in the Dunedin Hospital, so that they might have the advantage of experience that could only be gained in large hospitals.—Referred to the Hospital Committee to act. The town clerk of St. Kilda wrote notifying the appointment of Mr J. W. Dove to the vacancy on the board caused by the death of Mr Hall.—The communication was received, and it was resolved to appoint Mr Dove on the Works and Finance Committees. E. STANDFIELD’S CASE*. This case came before the board again in the form of a letter from Standfield, who stated that he wished to decline an offer made to him of 30s a week for leading a blind man. He said Vis temperament would not allow him to take up the work, and in addition he did not possess the endurance for such a task.

Mr Scurr said the board had been more than kind to Standfield, and the time had come when it should take a definite stand in regard to him. He moved that the amount now given to Standfield for relief (10s per week) be discontinued at the end of January.” Mr Gallaway said that if the man was fit to do the work offered to him he ought to do it. Would Dr Thomson (medical superintendent) sav that Standfield was fit to work? Dr Thomson said that Stansfield was fit to do the job offered to him. Mrs Ross seconded the motion which was carried with the addition of these words: 'lf, after examination bv the honorary medical staff, the man is regarded as fit to undertake light work.” THE DOCTOR’S PRIVILEGE. Mr Gallaway said he wished to refer to the remarks made by the coroner at the conclusion of a recent inquest. The coroner was reported to have said: A doctor had no privilege when he was called on to give evidence. The position of a private practitioner who wa s consulted by a patient was a somewhat different matter, and he should not divulge information given to him in confidenee The matter was, of course, quite different when the information bad been obtained and the doctor was called upon to give evidence. The case of a public institution and that of a private practitioner were, however, not h‘ a t -f S r nS ‘ Tl ,‘ e Hos P ital ' v is a public institution, and when patients went in there the medical officers were not justified in dealing with the patients as private practitioners would.” The coroner added that the matter was one to which the authorities should give serious consideration. For himself continued Mr Gallaway, he did not with those remarks. If the coroner was ii ht a question of class distinction was conM U i Se s because thc person who we hl f ° r ? tO A° t 0 a P rivate hospital would be treated differently from the person admitted to the public hospital. He could not agree with that principle. di<? not ,lal ' J Said that if a l’ a ‘ient di t gl ' e ne 7 ssar - v information to the doctor it would be against his or her interests. Jhe information was desir. able for the proper treatment of the case.

, P 12se w lands said they ought not to take too much notice of the remarks of one who was not an authority. The utterances of judges and magistrates mV 1 Ju a P ro,nin ence in the press that they did not deserve. He thought it was unfortunate that the words “ class distinction had been used, either by Air Gallaway or by a newspaper. It was practically the universal rule for all cases of suspected improper abortion to be sent to a hospital, because a private practitioner did not wish to deal with such cases. If a difference were nade between the relationship of the doctor as a doctor in a public institution and the relationship of the doctor in an outside institution or private institution a serious error would be committed, even though it might be legal. The first essential in the relationship between patient and doctor was that confidence should not be violated. It seemed to him somewhat invidious that the privilege allowed legally to lawyers and by custom to the clergy was utterly withheld fi om doctors. Confidence between a lawyer and his client was privileged, and although the confidence between a suspected criminal or other person in the clutches of the law and his spiritual adviser was not legally privileged, it was. in fact, privileged. lie admitted that the legal interpretation was that a doctor had no privilege in thc witness box, but the magistrate, in laying down his opiu’on that the medical mail should be a common informer was going outside his jurisdiction altogether. The chairman expressed thc opinion that t.iere should be no distinction between i medical man in private practice and the members of the board’s medical sta ff. The in. itt?r was not further discussed. COMPLIMENTARY. The chairman thanked members for the assistance they had given him during the year. He also spoke in commendatory terms of the manner in which their duties had been performed bv the secretary (Mr Jacobs) and staff, the honorary and resident staffs of the hospital, the nursing staff, and all others who 1 rd given. help in the board’s institutions, both in town and country, and to all he extended the season’s greetings. Air Quelch replied, thanking the chairman for his remarks and his kind wishes.