TREATMENT OF CONSUMPTIVES.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXXI, Issue 12635, 23 March 1905, Page 3

TREATMENT OF CONSUMPTIVES.

THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S POSITION. •• Taking advantage pi the presence of the District Health Officer, Dr Finch, in town, a representative ;bf this paper asked him yesterday for :a,statement of the Health Department's attitude towards the provision by hospital-.boards of facilities for the treatment of consumptive patients. His reply was that the Department were using no compulsion whatever in regard to this matter.. They thought it would, be beneficial to the community that these patients should be able to get proper treatment for their disease, and as the hospital boards had to find the - money for any provision that might be made, the Department gave them all the information at their disposal, and then it was for the boards to say whether they would find the necessary funds or not. •In the North Is'and, several places thought it was worth while to do so, and consumptive annexes had been added to the ordinary hospitals—as at New Plymouth and Otaki. In Canterbury, however, the position was that at the two principal hospitals—Christchurch and Timaru—there 'was no room for consumptive annexes, and therefore if anything was done, it would have to take some other shape. In that case it would be cheaper for tie different boards to join in erecting and maintaining a consumptive hospital than to each do something on their own acqount. To show the advisability of some steps being taken' to deal with the disease, he mentioned that the vital statistics showed that the average yearly death rate from consumption in New Zealand was 10 per 10,000 of the population. As there were. 160,000 people in the Canterbury health district, this meant that every year 160 people died from the complaint. That was a pretty serious loss, especially as in the majority of cases, death occurred between ■the ages of 20 and 35, the time of life when the State should be getting the best results from its citizens. _ If the hospital boards at Christchurch, Ashburton, Timaru, Waimate. and Oamaru decided to take unitsd action in the matter, Dr Finch said he had given the opinion that a hospital to accommodate 40 consumptives would cost about £4OOO to build, and about £4OOO a year to maintain. . As the Government gave a subsidy of £ for i, the boards would only have to find halt these amounts. South Canterbury's share of the cost of erection would be £3OQ. Supposing provision were made for double the number of patients he had allowed for, our share would be £6OO. Some people might think that £4OOO was a lot of money to spend on a consumptive hospital, when places like Nurse Maude's camps were comparatively inexpensive. He wished to say, as had been said at the North Cauterrmry Board's meeting, that Nurse Maude lad done a noble work, but it must be remembered that people would not be satisfied if an institution under the control of the hospital" boards were conducted in the same way as a place provided chiefly by private benevolence. There would soon be complaints at discomforts arising from inclement weather, primitive cooking arrangements and so forth, if these had to be submitted to in a public institution. With regard to maintenance, he had put the weekly cost of a consumptive patient at £2 a week. Proprietors of private sanatoria had found it impossible to make them pay even at that figure, and had had I to raise their charges. In Great Britain, it had been found that the average yearly cost was £75 per patient, so that he was

safe in pitting it at £IOO in New Zealand. £2 a week was more-than it cost to maintain an ordinary patient in hospital, but there was no getting away from it that the consumptive was a dear patient to maintain.. One reason, was the necessity for skilled. medical supervision of each case. Some people had the idea that all one had to do wis to put a consumptive in the open air! and he ■ yfbuld get well.". But his food and his, exercise had to be carefully regtlated.for each patient, so that ; constant medical supervision was an essential- point; in the treatment, and this made thei costM maintenance' dear. Then arrangements; had to■-■be. made to keep the patients unused'--and'': in good humour, or else;%rtuibling .co::,discontent were- likely to'V-npset''! the institutibn. ' -He had been asked hciwi it' ; was Nurse Maude's camp only cost iss per- week per patient, but those wbi asked that question evidently did not know that'theVori'y medical supervision there was there,;-was ;given gratuitously, while the matron also worked without pay, and the work about, the camp was done, • either br the* patie'nts. themselves or by 'people.-*kterested;: inVthe institution. - The camp was ■thereforei.run practically without expense,' but, it 'Would:Manifestly be impossible for; hospital boards either to go in for a primiViv'e" institution : or to conduct it for nothing.. ■ ; V In conclusion, vDr.- Finch said the Department did not wish-to be misunderstood in this:matter.; ; ;They were simply giving the best and fullest; information "they could about the: treatment !8f consumptives. It was for-the peop'e'themselves, through their hospital; boards, to soy whether they would spend anything on dealing with the disease.