THE TREATMENT OF CONVALESCENTS.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LX, Issue 143770, 19 April 1912, Page 3

THE TREATMENT OF CONVALESCENTS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —“What’s wrong with the Old People’s Home?” dramatically asked Mr. M'Allum at a meeting of the Hospital Board, at which a discussion took place regarding a letter over my name appearing in a, recent issue of your paper, and in which I pleaded for a more considerate and humane treatment of needy convalescents. In reply to Mr. M'Allum’s question, permit me to say that, as an Old People’s Home, there is nothing wrong with it, so far as I know. I was very careful to guard that point in my letter; and Mr. M'Allum is (unwittingly, I am sure) drawing a redherring across the scent when he suggests that there is a reflection upon the matron in charge. Just here let mo say that,l yield to no one in my appreciation of the capable manner in which Mrs. Bayly carries out her oneorus duties. So there is uo need to fight from behind the matron. It is what the chairman calls “the policy of the board” that is under discussion. The point is, whether or not the Old People’s Home is the most suitable place for convalescent patients. The ' board maintains, i honestly enough, that it is: some of us, no less honestly, maintain that it is not. Now, what is the evidence? Scrupulous cleanliness, libera! dietary, fresh air, good attention—none of which I wish to deny; but is that the sum-total of requirement? I submit that it is not. The air favourable to recovery must contain something more than oxygen and nitrogen. When any of onr own are recovering from a serious illness! we try, at whatever cost, to give them change of scene, the sunniest of surroundings, cheerful company, and new interests which will divert the mind from itself. No ono will seriously maintain that the Old People’s Home'fulfils these conditions. And this without any reflection upon the institution as such; for what is ideal for old people is not necessariiv suitable for convalescent patients." I wish n few of the members of the local board could visit some of the homes in other places where the very atmosphere tingles with healing suggestion, and where nothing is good enough for the sick poor but the best. But this will cost more! Ah, there’s the rub! The head and front of my offending is that these suggestions mean extra expense. Member after member waa almost brutally frank on this point, and the attitude of the board is the most telling justification of my previous'lets ter. But suppose it does cost morelare we a poverty-stricken people in Taranaki? I can understand rigorous economy, even parsimony, in London, but not in Now Plymouth. Says Mr. M'Allum, “Wo are here to conserve the interests of tho ratepayers.” But what of the greater interests of the poor and helpless? As a ratepayer of this town, I protest against tho judgment of tho board. The soul of the ratepayer is not so small as they would • have us believe Mr. Corkill, in a recent letter, showed that there had been an advance in tho interpretation of the duty of the board. First there was the blade—where men were yesterday; then, the ear—where, it seems, they are to-day; then, the full corn in the ear— where, we trust, they will ho to-morrow. It is a matter for thankfulness that wo are gradually eliminating the old work-house-test” from our public beneficence; and I am not without hope that even a charitable aid board wiU become still more charitable in its dealings with those in need and suffering, and that, at length, we shall have a special home or ward where the poorest may have the best that modem science and philanthropy can give—without a grudge from any.—l w pxjRTON.