NAPIER HOSPITAL

Southland Times, Issue 20490, 18 May 1928, Page 8

NAPIER HOSPITAL

GIFT FOR SOLARIUM REJECTED BY DIRECTORGENERAL REPLY BY DR. J. ALLAN BERRY (Per United Press Association.) Napier, May 17. Replying to Dr. J. Allan Berry’s remarks with reference to Dr. Valintine’s rejection of the gift of £3OOO to provide a solarium at the Napier Hospital, the Director-Gen-eral is reported to have said: “It is a pure misrepresentation.” Dr. Valintine added that he has great respect for sun treatment but that the position at Napier created difficulty. If the work were allowed to proceed it would create a precedent which would be quoted. In addition, the erection of a solarium in conjunction with the hospital must be regarded as something of a luxury in the existing circumstances. The principal reason, however, was due to the fact that at no time did the Napier Board suggest that the gift of £3OOO would cover the cost of constructing the solarium. Other expenditure, Dr. Valintine stated, was involved in the proposals of Dr. Berry and these the Director-General was not prepared to sanction. Dr. Berry now replies to Dr. Valintine in the following terms. “I strongly resent the use of the expression ‘pure misrepresentation in Dr. Valintine’s reply. I have not represented the position strongly enough. Dr. Valintine admits that he vetoed the unconditional gift of £3OOO for the conversion of the roof of the Coleman Ward into a solarium and for the installation of the necessary lift but he is probably unaware that still another tentative offer of £3OOO for the same purpose, thus allowing the first offer to be used for other works, was also vetoed as the result of his attitude. The actual offer and possible offer were made without any question of a subsidy being expected by the benefactors. I am interested to learn that the Director-

General has a great respect for sun treatment but when he states that the position in Napier created difficulty on account of it being used as a precedent, I fail to follow his reasoning. If benefactors all over New Zealand offered money without a subsidy for solaria, it would be a valuable and useful procedure. The principal reason for Dr. Valintine’s refusal now is apparently that at no time did the Napier Board suggest the gift of £3OOO would cover the cost of constructing the solarium. This statement is absolutely incorrect. The estimated cost of the work was £2,800, No other expenditure whatever is involved in the building of the solarium. In light of recent advances in our scientific knowledge of the value of sunlight in the prevention and treatment of disease, does Dr. Valintine really regard the solarium as being something of a luxury? In countries where the more effective rays of the sun are not so abundant as in Napier, costly artificial light departments are installed. These, according to Dr. Valintine, would also be luxuries. With this archiac the world’s most eminent physicians would express the strongest disagreement. The foregoing facts substantiate my main statement which Dr. Valintine himself admits. He declined to approve the acceptances of the offer of £3OOO for the solarium at Napier hospital. This is the main point and there has clearly been no misrepresentation.