WESTPORT HOSPITAL.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 681, 7 July 1870, Page 2

WESTPORT HOSPITAL.

The usual monthly meeting of the above Committee took place on Tuesday evening. Present—Dr. Gile*-, (Chairman), Messrs Eeid, Munro, Pitt, Whyte, Sheahan, Simpson, Humphrey, Powell and Munsnn.

Minutes of previous meeting were read and confirmed.

The Medical Officer's report and Treasurer's report were read and adopted.

Mr Humphrey called attention to tho fact that Tottenham, who was un der committal for trial, had heen aninmate of the institution for six months. He was of opinion that Jthe G-aol Department should be charged with his maintenance; it would have the effect of reducing considerably the sum, granted by the Government, in excess of the usual subsidy. Mr Whyte also thought the maintenance money, amounting to £7O, paid by patients during the past year, might very reasonably be regarded as subscriptions, if that were oue the overdraft would be very trifling. Mr Munuo also referred to the large sum disbursed under building account. Ho regretted that the ease of Tottenham had not been reported by the Visiting Committee, as it would have enabled them to have made out a stronger case, showing that the Groverninent were really indebted to the institution.

Dr Gtles was certainly of opinion that, in the event of an adjustment of accounts between the Government and the Committee a claim could be made out with respect to the patient, Tottenham, but as the Committee's indebtedness to the Government was simply nominal he thought it useless to discuss the subject at that time. With respect to the maintenance money, paid by patients, the Government had positively declined to regard the item as public subscriptions. Some reference was then made as to the payment of the June accounts, and it was decided that the matter should stand over till the arrival of the Sub-treasurer, Mr Harris, from Nelson.

The Gentlemen appointed to canvass the district for subscriptions reported progress and paid in the following amounts: —

Addison's "Flat. Messrs Powell and Bailie, collectors ; M2 ISs. Giles Ter.ra.ce. MrMunson, collector; £27 16s. German Terrace. Messrs Whyte, collector ; £l9 12 6d. Caledonian Terrace. Mr Munro, collector ; £l9 2s 6d. The collectors referred to the very valuable assistance they had received from the different gentlemen on the diggings who had been placed on the Sub-committee, and special mention was made of the services of Messrs Beaton, Braithwaite, and M'Farlane. The first named party was reported to have been very successful in obtaining subscriptions and there would be a considerable sum, probably about £6O, forwarded by buff. Sufficient time had not elapsed to admit of a return from Messrs Sloan and Zala of the Lye u.

The Visiting Committee reported satisfactorily of the Institution, and produced the following correspondence and report upon the subject of the alleged indecently hasty burial of dedeceased hospital inmates: —

St John's Parsonage, "Westport, May 23, 1870. Sir., —I have been more than once applied to for burial of deceased persons within twenty-four hours of their death in the Westport Hospital. In the interests of decency and humanity this should not be permitted. On Sunday, May Bth, Mr Carr came to me and stated that John James had died in the Hospital that same morning about 10 o'clock, and asked for burial at 3 p.m. In the case of William Honess, who also died in the District Hospital on April 29th, I was applied to for burial within the time already mentioned. Yesterday a man named George Dell died about 2 o'clock in the morning, and at 12 o'clock noon his body was delivered to the undertaker for burial. If the Hospital was full, or if there was only one ward, I could understand unusual haste in getting rid of the dead, but this cannot be pleaded.—l am, Sir, your obedient servant, William D. E. Lewis, Minister, St John's, Westport. J. Giles, Esq., ex-officio officer Westport District Hospital. Westport, May 23, 1870. Eev. Sra, —I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of this date complaining of undue haste in the burial of persons dying in the Westport Hospital. I will forward your letter to Dr Thorpe, who, I have no doubt, will give any directions in the matter that may be necessary. I may say, however, that I cannot agree with you as to the impropriety of allowing burial in any case within 2-1 hours of the death, nor do I think that such a limitation as this would be at all desirable. I think when the friends of the deceased are ready and desirous to remove the body, no delay should, as a rule, be interposed by the Hospital authorities, but, ont the other hand, the friends should no be urged to remove the body within a reasonable time. The interval mentioned by you in one or two of the cases certainly seems too short unless some special reason existed for haste.—l am, Bev. Sir, your obedient servant,

Joseph Giles, Chairman Hospital Committee. Eev. W. D. R, Lewis, St John's Parsonage, Westport. St. John's Parsonage, Westport, May 24,1780. Dear Sib, —I have the honor, to acknowledge the receipt of your reply to my letter of yesterday's date.

I admit that in exceptional cases (e.g. George Dell,) it would not be improper to permit burial of persons dying in the Hospital within 24 hours after death, but in the interest of the friends of those who may from time to time end their days in the district Hospital, I venturo to submit that sufficient time should be permitted to elapse before burial so that relatives and others may have an opportunity of showing their last token of respect for the departed. I do not ask the Hospital authorities to interpose delay after the friends of tho deceased are ready and desirous to remove the bodies of the dead, far otherwise, but I must strongly plead on behalf of such friends, that time may be given them to seek tho removal of the bodies, and see that the dead are decently interred. In the case of John James already alluded to, friends were only just in time to prevent the body being buried without any religous service being conducted at the grave ; and, through their interposition, the funeral was delayed til! the following day, the corpse being kindly taken care of by Mr Gibson, of the Miners' Rest Hotel.

I desire that this correspondence may be regarded as strictly of a public nature, and I therefore address you as the ex-qfficio member of the Hospital Committee, representing the Nelsom Government.—l am, dear sir, your obedient servant, William D. R. Lewis, Minister of St. John's, Westport. J. Giles, Esq., ex-officio officer District Hospital, Wesport.

Westport, May 26th., 1870. Eev. Sir, —I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 24th, in continuation of the subject of persons dying at the Hospital. I quite agree with all that you say, and I am sure that the Medical Officer, to whom I will communicate your second letter also, will give proper directions in the matter. —I ana, Eev. sir, yours truly, Joseph Giles. Eev. AY. D. E. Lewis, St. John's Parsonage.

Westport, June 7. Sir—l have the honor to return the correspondence between the Eev. MrLewis and yourself on the subject of the interment of deceased Hospitalpatients which was forwarded to ine for perusal. I have to state that I have no Dersonal knowledge of the facts alleged by Mr Lewis, and the enquiries I have been able to make have failed to satisfy me that, supposing them correct, they justify the imputations he grounds upon them, viz. : an offence against the laws of " decency and humanity," as committed by some person or persons crmnficted with the Hospital, hy t.hp.ir manner of dealing with the bodies of the dead.

I find that, in cases of death within the Hospital, the practice has been to deliver the remains to the friends of the deceased, or to the undertaker employed by them, when applied for, ir. respective of any time-limit, (except in cases of an Inquest having to be held) and in such cases as have to be interred by the Institution, having no friends, or none willing or able to take charge of the funeral, for the burial to take place on the following day; occasionally, when death has occurred early in the day, and special circumstances have existed, on the same afternoon.

I have on one or two occasions had to direct the early burial of the dead, in the interests of living humauity, there being as yet uo special place for their reception. This practice is not, so far as I am aware, unusual, nor can it be considered indecent, whether death occurs in Hospitals similarly circum. stauced, or in private dwellings, in a district like this.

With regard to the three cases specified by Mr Lewis, I find one of them (Honess) was interred under an order from the Coroner, after a post mortem examination and Inquest bein<* held. The other two were taken charge of by their friends—in both these cases it was highly desirable to remove with as little delay as possible, owing to the nature of the disease from which they died. In the case of John James, I have been able to make special enquiry outside the Hospital, without finding that any dissatisfaction was expressed by the friends of the deceased, they recognising the necessity of separating the dead from among the living. Some misunderstanding appears to have occurred in this case as to the time of the funeral, and I am informed that, in consequence, it was postponed to the following day. The body was removed by the friends, Mr Poole offering to allow it to remain iu the Hospital. In connection with this subject, I would respectfully urge upon the Committee the desirability of providing a mortuary or dead-house, for apart from other, and chief considerations, the very apparent necessity for removing the dead from among the living is apt to create a presumption of hasty burial.

Mr Lewis suggests the smaller ward, but this, when vacant, may at any moment be needed for a case requiring isolation, a defect to which its position with regard to the kitchen renders its use for such a purpose undesirable, whilst the alternative—an unoccupied bed in the larger ward is still more to be deprecated. I have given instructions that in future no corpse shall be removed from the Hospital without my knowledge or

permission, but I should certainly not think of withholding the latter, however lately the patient might have died, if the friends or relatives desired to take charge of it. Nor should I hesitate to direct immediate interment in a case where ill consequences to the living might result from its remaining in the Hospital. I cannot conclude without remarking upon the matter and manner of Mr Lewis's communication. But lately a resident in a goldfields district, he is evidently ignorant of its usages and necessities in the matter ke has selected for his animadversion. As to his special facts, I am at a loss to know whence he derived them. I cannot learn that he sought to obtain, to verify, or correct them at their presumed source.

The tone he adopts would appear indicative rather of personal feeling, than of a sincere desire to rectify an abuse he believes himself to have discovered. He seems not disinclined to improve the occasion by attacking an institution, the administracors of which, I can assure him, have as great a practical regard for the laws of " Decency and Humanity" as Mr Lewis himself professes. They only differ in extending their application to the living sick. I have requested Mr Poole to furnish a statement of the facts connected with this subject so far as his knowledge and practice extend. —I have the honor to be, Sir, your obdt. servant, S. Tiioepe, Medical Officer of the Westport District Hospital. To the Chairman to the Westport Hospital Committee.

Westport Hospital, July 4th, 1870 Gentlemen', —In reply to the communications of the Rev. Mr Lewis, dated, May 23rd and 24th, relative to the burial of three patients, viz., John James, Wm. Honess, and George Doll, with reference to John James, I had a distinct understanding with Mr Gibson and Mr Smith that I was to let the former know immediately after his (J. James's) demise; he undertaking to let Smith know. It was further agreed upon that, in the event of his friends not coming forward, he was to be buried at the expense of the Hospital. His friends did come forward, took charge of the remains, and buried them decently. Honess was not interred until after a postmortem examination and the body viewed by a jury. George Dell died of mortification, which, as a matter of course, left no option but to commit his remaius to their final resting place so soon as circumstances would permit. I beg, most respectfully, to inform the Committee that the interments, mentioned by the Rev. Mr Lewis, did not take place from any desire to get rid of the remains hastily or irreverently but from a far different motive—to protect the living inmates from noisome odours and disease—and in accordance with the usages of other hospitals.

Had the Rev. Gentleman paid ordinary attention to the living patients, and not left them destitute of spiritual and sympathetic consolation—for weeks together—l could give him credit for his assumed anxiety concerning the dead. But having neglected his duties as a christian and a clergyman to the inmates of the Hospital, his assumed censure is uncalled for. Immediately after his appointment I informed him that the Rev. Mr Harvey visited the Hospital every Wednesday, at 3 o'clock—that he read and expounded a portion of Scripture concluding with prayer —and when he saw we had bad cases, visited daily. The Rev. Mr Walsh comes frequently, often daily, when any of his flock are sick or injured (ever so slightly), while the Rev. Mr Lewis absents himself for weeks, and, seldom calls unless sent for—for example, in Peter Howe's case, I had to summon him three times, though he knew Howe was in a dangerous state.—l have the honor to be, gentlemen, your obedient servant, Wm. 11. Poole, Hospital Steward. The Visiting Committee W. D. Hospital, Westport. Mr Humphrey moved, and it was seconded, that the report of the Visiting Committee, as read, be adopted. Mr Pitt enquired whether Mr Humphrey would append to his motion that the Hon. Secretary furnish the Rev. Mr Lewis with a copy of the report.

Dv Giles thought that the Hon. Secretary might simply state that the Committee had instituted a full enquiry, which had resulted in the charges having been found to be without foundation.

Mr Pitt was prepared to move as a substantive, that a copv of the report be forwarded to the Rev. Mr Lewis.

Mr Sheaiian disagreed entirely with the proposal. He did not think that the reverend gentleman had been actuated by any other than humane and honorable feelings in bringing the subject before the Committee. There might have been error in judgment, and he believed there was, but he could not think there had been any malice in so doing. He moved that the Secretary write Mr Lewis stating that upon inquiry the charges had been satisfactorily disproved. The motion was seconded, and carried.