HOSPITAL PATIENTS AND X-RAY APPARATUS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18208, 15 July 1927, Page 9

HOSPITAL PATIENTS AND X-RAY APPARATUS.

'fo th© Editor. Sir,—There seem to be many questions that the public would like to be enlightened upon in connection with the verdict on the hospital patient who lately died from a fractured skull. Why was the evidence of the doctors and nurses (who knew wljat to expect and looked for it but could not find it, and handed it on to the X-ray department), how was it that this evidence was treated as of little value —in fact, the verdict practically casts aspersions upon it. Why was other evidence taken as correct without further verification. Were there any facts connected with this patient that were not sufficiently discussed? And what about the Invercargill footballer who even played football with a fractured skull. Why is it that in older countries a coroner has to possess a certain amount of medical knowledge before he obtains the job, whereas in New Zealand a coroner seems to obtain a dispensation from someone which entitles him to be an authority on every conceivable subject, even down to which is the best way to keep our old people in homes warm, by hot air, hot water pipes, or open fireplaces. Does not the whole evidence, as well as the Invercargill evidence, point out that the X-ray apparatus, good as it is, is not yet quite as developed as we may hope it will be in the future? Instead of blaming the hospital authorities, nurses and doctors, the fault should have been laid with the X-ray apparatus, and a hope expressed that every effort would be made to keep it up-to-date with the world's latest knowledge on the subject. It seems to me, too, that it would have been justifiable on the coroner's part, when holding the inquest on the victim of the Burwood murder, if he had pointed out to the police: “ There have been a lot of undetected crimes lately; see that you get this man.”— I am, etc., FAIR PLAY.