WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1912. WHY NO ENQUIRY?

Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette, 12 June 1912, Page 4

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1912. WHY NO ENQUIRY?

On Wednesday morning last, in. Warkworth, an accomplished lady on the sunny side of life's meridian, breathed her last. The cause of death has been registered a puerperal fever. Another case was previously reported, and iUsthat case the patient hovered between life and death till youth and constitution won the victory. Whether there were more cases we have no evidence to say.

Puerperal fever is a form of blood poisoning, and in addition to its severity, it is extremely contagious. The grave risk" of medical men and nurses acting as a medium of contagion, is recorded in the sacrifice of very many lives, before dear bought experience has taught the need of utmost care.

We cannot say, because we do hot know, whether there has been any medium of; confcagiqn in the cases that have occurred, but they were all" the cases of one practitioner, and we do say that in the public interest there should be ari enquiry, to ensure that everything was done that could be done, for instance is the statement true that nurse and husband were kept in ignorance of the disease ?

The public should know whether the Public Health Department instructed the practitioner, not to attend other midwifery cases for some specified time, and if not why not f If instructions were so given why were they not-observed ? It is stated that while registered practitioners or nurses, when, attending a puerperal case, can be ordered by the Department not to attend another midwifery case for a time sufficient to end all risk of contagion, the Department has no power to prevent unregistered practitioners or nurses from going direct from case to case, and the only method of stopping such dissemination of the seeds of death is through action arising out of an inquest. We cannot think for a moment the .Health Department would take up such a criminal attitude as to refuse to give official warning of danger, because it cannot add the words " We order you to stop."

The medical practitioner in the cases mentioned, is an unregistered man. That means that no matter how great his attainments may be, lie cannot do any government work if there is anyone else to do it, he cannot recover remuneration 'for his services in a court of law;, he cannot give a certificate of death tfiat will be accepted by a Registrar, and therefore any death in any case happening under his treatment is enquired into, and if necessary an inquest held.'

That being so, why then was there no enquiry as to the cause of death in tho case under review ? Because Dr. Ick-Hewins, who was called in to consult on the case, gave a certificate, which Mr Shoesmith could not give, and the giving of the certificate has thus far prevented any enquiry. After all that Dr. Ick-Hewins has written, after his insinuations against our integrity in the discharge of a responsible public duty, about the only thing we did expect of him was not to do what he has done. The following letters speak for themselves. We received them in 1910 from Dr. Ick-Hewins as a reply to* an article published in the Times headed 'Wanted a Coroner.' Hadjt been any other Justice, than the one that was attacked, the letters would have been published then, and with as forcible a comment as we could have written. Suffice now to say, that after full particulars of the case mentioned had been supplied to the Justice Department, the Justice attacked was later on appointed Coroner. It was only a sense of public duty that led to the acceptance of what promised to be a troublesome service. It is not many months since a complaint was sent to Wellington that deaths were taking place in these distircts, and burials following, with absolutely no enquiry. In reply, the Department was fully informed of the course of action taken by the Coroner, which ended the matter. That course was in accord with the Court of Queen's Bench in England, which declared the action of. a Coroner-obtruding himself into private families, to examine into the cause of death, without reasonable grounds for supposing that the death, though sudden, was other than natural was higjhly illegal. Every death was reported upon, and with a full sense of responsibility, it was determined that in no instance in cases attended by the unregistered practitionerj until now was an inquest necessary. The present case is different, and as there is npw no! Coroner here, and. Dr Ickllewins has given a certificate, a higher authority must intervene if anything is to be done. Now for the letters:— , •,,'.

Warkwortb, Jam 1, 1910. To the Hon. the Minister for Justice, .Wellington. _" .: /•-

Dear Sir,—l wish to call yoiir atten-

'tibiv:tx>> situation thatisrapidly becoming intolerable f oriae. There is in this town an unregistered practitioner of mledicine. He has, I understand, been here many years and has done* much good worl;. To prevent him from continuing to earn what he can would be, I think, unfair, but it is vastly more unfair, jhat I, a registered practitioner, should be unduly handi-* capped in competition with hinii; During the week just ended, there died here a young, and previously strong and healthy man after a short illness, during which he was attended by my unregistered rival. He died, and has been buried. The local constable, on hearing of his death (it was not reported to him though occurring in the town) took the proper step^of acquainting a Justice of the Peace who decided thai there was no need, of an inquest. Surely this was a peculiar conclusion to come to. Perhaps lam wrong, but it seems to me that when a man dies after a brief illness without having had regular medical attention, where such attention could easily have been obtained, the death does merit inquiry. I made no complaint when another previous case was transferred from my care to my rival's in my absence (though the case.;;was chronic and my jibsence was of only a few hours dnration) and death subsequently ensuing the body was buried without inquiry, but the present case is especially annoying in view of the following facts, viz.: that this unregistered practitioner is the official examiner here for the New Zealand Ins. Co., in cases of accidents under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that the impression obtains that he is entitled "to sign certificates on behalf of. the Government," This is generally believed by the residents. ■'* Further—a few weeks ago my attendance was requested at an inquest twenty-one miles away. My total remuneration was less than I would have obtained from a private patient, and while away (on Govt. work) a confinement case for which I had been engaged, was attended, by ray unregistered fellow practitioner, who pocketed the full fee. You can surely see how intolerable my position is, and I beg to inform you that I intend failing any other redress to equalise competition by withdrawing my registration and so enabling myself to compete with my rival on more equal terms. Ido not object to Mr Shoesmith (that is the name of the unregistered practitioner to whom I refer) or any other unqualified man practising medicine or any other trade on profession but let him do it at his own risk and not apparently under the protection of the Department of Justice.

I am, Sir, Yours faithfully,

Theo. I. lok, M.8., B.S. Warkworfch, Jan. 4, 1910. To the Hon. the Minister for Justice,

Wellington

Sir, —In amplification 'of my former letter to you (dated Jan. 1, 1910) I wish to state that the Justice of thre Peace referred to therein is also the local Agent for the New ZeaInsurance Company (accident dept.) a coincidence which has to my mind at least an unpleasant significance. I must emphasise my complaint, against that Co., for their action in sending my patients to Mr Shoesraith for certificates or indeed any injured workmen at all several of whom have gone to him when scut rather than incur their employers displeasure. Of course I can substantiate my state-

ments

I am, yours faithfully, Theo. I. Ick, KB