HOSPITAL CONTROL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17061, 20 September 1929, Page 9

HOSPITAL CONTROL

| BURDEN ON RATEPAYERS j PRIVATE WARD CONTROVERSY I discussion IN PARLIAMENT. (Por Pross Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. In the House of Representatives today, the Hon. A. J. Stall worthy, moving the second reading of the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Amendment Bill, stated that it comprised the agreement' reached between the Wairau Hospital Hoard and the Picton Hospital Board, and was designed to merge the two districts into one district, to be called the Marlborough hospital district, thereby meeting the convenience of residents. Mr. J. A. Young (R.), said the Bill raised the question of whether there should be a reduction in the number ot hospital districts in the Dominion. Ho said that some districts were merely monuments to local political ambitions—worthy ambitions, it was true—but they imposed an undue burden on local ratepayers. Mr. M. J. Savage (L.), said the Minister of Health had spoken at the hospital board's conference in favor of the introduction of private paying wards iii public hospitals, and he contended it -was justifiable to assume that the Minister was speaking on behalf of the Government. Mr. Savage insisted that this was a form of class distinction, and ho would like to know if such a system was part of the Government's policy. The Minister was advocating the erection of private wards at the public’s expense for the use of the richer class, who I would also be able to select their own j medical and surgical attendant, j Mr. Savage said he was in favor of as much privacy as possible, and the provision of the best medical and j surgical treatment obtainable, but those privileges should bo available jto everyone. Continuing, he said it seemed that the time had come for ! seeking some national system of finjancing public hospitals. The present j tendency was to place on the patient | as much of the cost as he could and I would bear, and the greater part, of I the burden then fell on local ratepayers. PAYMENT OF NURSES. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (L.), stated that people who lived in flats, etc., escaped paying local rates, and while jthey were bearing their fair share of {national taxation they were not paying their share towards the upkeep of j local institutions. Ho hoped the (Minister would endeavor to devise a (system of national financing and local administration of public hospitals, j (Mr. A. M. Samuel (R-), said ho {trusted the Minister’s statement, to which Mr. Savage had referred, was not to lie taken as an indication of the Government's policy. He was satisified that no Government would coun- ! tenanco any policy of the kind, and he was certain that the House would | not. agree to it. A system of differential treatment to patients would constitute a serious injustice. Mr. Samuel asked the Minister whether it was intended to bettor the conditions of probationers and nurses in public hospitals. He contended that payment for this noble service was remarkably inadequate, and the duties were too onerous. Mi\ ,T. T. Hogan (I.), stated that the system of providing private wards in public hospitals might enable * those institutions to pay their way. iHe admitted that the principle in.volved was not democratic, and for ! that reason alone he hoped the Minister would not pursue such a policy. J Mr. W. A. Bodkin (ITA, expressed jthe opinion that the Minister’s rej marks had not contained any suggestion of intention to provide differen- ■ tin 1 treatment for rich and poor. It had been the speaker’s experience that, under the present system, owing

to limited accommodation, preference was rightly given- to the poorer patients on the ground that the richer patients could afford to go elsewhere. He asked why only private hospitals should he in a position to cater for the richer community. He could not see any objection to catering for different classes, so long as the host possible treatment was rendered to the poorer people, though the same degree of privacy might not be available. “SNOBBERY!” Mr. ,T. A. Nash (R.) expressed his support for Mr. Savage’s view, and urged that more inducement should be given to young men and women who adopt the medical profession in order to overcome the present shortage of house surgeons. Figures showed a decrease in the number of students attending the medical schools at Otago University,.and he trusted that condition would not continue. Mr. Nash ? also asked that no time should be lost I in the extension of the dental clinic system. Mr. W. .T. .Jordan (IT.) disagreed with Mr. Bodkin’s statement that it was difficult for rich people to gain admission to public hospitals, and'oxpressed the view that in regard to such a social service as a hospital the question of whether they paid or not should not be considered. Mr. W. D. Eysnar (1.) resented the criticism of Ihe Minister, and advocated separate wards, but not separate treatment, in public hospitals. Mr. 11. G. R, Mason (L.) described the desire* for separate wards as “snobbery.” Mr. \V. J. Broadfoot (U.) expressed the opinion that the second reading of an almost purely local bill was not the occasion for the discussion that was occupying the time of the House. There would probably be an opportunity later on for such a debate. ( Mr. P. Fraser (U.) challenged any Minister of Health to try to put through a bill embodying tho principles that the Hon. A. J. Stallworthy had been stated to have advocated. Ho was certain the House would not let it pass. MINISTER EXPLAINS Opposition to differential treatment was also expressed by Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (R), who referred to the Minister's policy, whereupon Mr. Stallwortliy interjected: “There is a difference between a statement of policy and a

statement for discussion.” The Minister', in reply, said time would not permit him to reply to all the statements made. However, as regards the point raised'by Mr. 'Savage, he pointed out that he had had to make a purview of general matters of hospital administration, and he had simply stated the pros and cons of the different aspects of the situation.' He had pot made a definite stntempnet either on behalf of himself or on behalf of the Government. '.He was completely opposed to any different treatment for-rich and poor. Mr. Stallworthy added that while the richer classes were legally entitled to the same rights of admission to public hospitals as the other classes, actually they cjid not receive the same consideration, as in cases in which there was a pressure on 'accommodation the poorer people received preference. Ho concluded by stating that, he was satisfied that the hospital system in New Zealand was second to none in the world.