The Daily News. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1924. THE HOSPITAL CONTROVERSY.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 November 1924, Page 6

The Daily News. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1924. THE HOSPITAL CONTROVERSY.

That there should be raised a controversy in New Zealand over the right of the sick and suffering to be treated at the public hospitals of the country cannot but be greatly deplored. If a moment’s calm consideration is given to the beneficent system that has been instituted in the Dominion and placed under the administration of the Hospital and Charitable Aid Boards, no unbiassed person can come to any other conclusion than that the principle on which that system is based is sound, practical and thoroughly humanitarian. Until that system is altered —and it will be a bad day for the country when such a reactionary step is taken—there can exist no doubt as to the wisdom of continuing its administration by a single control on democratic lines. Otherwise the representatives of the people who at present find the whole of the funds for carrying on the work connected with our public hospitals and the relief of destitution, will be merely collectors, of funds for disposal by members of the Bi’itish Medical Association as they may deem fit. There then may be continual friction over the matter of who shall be admitted as patients and who shall be denied the benefit of treatment and be forced to enter the private institutions at which doctors can charge what fees they please. With characteristic directness and plainness of speech, the chairman of the Taranaki Hospital Board (Mr. M. Fraser) asserted at the meeting on Tuesday:

“The hospital is for the people 'of Taranaki, whether rich or poor, and I hope the day will never come .when we shall have an honorary staff that can stand at the door and refuse, admission to anyone who comes along for treatment.”

That view so emphatically expresses the real principle upon which the hospital system of this country is based that it should command universal support by the. lay section of the community. There is no getting away from the basic fact that public hospitals were instituted for the purpose of enabling the public to receive the best treatment that skill, equipment and good management could ensure; also that it was never intended that these beneficent institutions should be in any way subject to the ambitions —financial or otherwise—of the medical fraternity, the scale of fees being fixed by the boards on a practical basis for all patients alike, yet the power of reducing or even writing off the full amount, being in the hands of the boards. Such a system meets every case, the only element of charity being the adjustment of fees for the poorer section of the community. Logically, those ratepayers who, by reason of their good circumstances, contribute most towards the. building and maintenance of the hospitals, are certainly entitled to claim the right of treatment thereat if they so desire, although they may prefer to enter private institutions in which members of the profession may have either a direct interest or absolute control. That is a question which should be left entirely to the patients’ discretion, guided possibly by the advice of their medical attendants, but that aspect of the matter in no way should affect the basic principle of our public hospitals. It is much to be feared that the money-making element is to be found at the root of the attack that is being made by the B.M.A. on the present hospital system and the appointment of honorary medical staffs, a movement that should be strenuously opposed. There can, however, be no doubt that a very strong case has been made out for adequately remunerating the members of the medical staffs at the public hospitals. It might also be possible to arrange a rota of honorary medical attendants, but only upon the distinct understanding that the latter in no way interfered with the admission or retention of patients.