73

H.—22a

Two more medical officials, a junior and a senior, would be required, and witness thought they could do all the work at present being done by the honorary staff. They possibly might not do it as well. It would depend on the casjs coming in as to the cost of consultations, which would require to be done outside. An honorary staff would save £700, or even double that, if they were not unreasonable in their requests, but witness would not admit without consideration that the staff contributed that amount to the Hospital maintenance. If they did it would be right, on the broad principle of democracy, that they should have representation on the Board. Dr. Roberton questioned the witness as to the law relating to the appointment of representatives to the Board, and the Chairman remonstrated, remarking: You may give us credit for having some knowledge of it. I must confess we are intelligent, and quite willing to listen, though. The witness said the Board managed the Hospital and Costley Home, and the general business pertaining to these institutions. In arranging finances the Board had been hampered through pressure brought to bear through the Press The non-payment of contributions up to date by local bodies had been inconvenient, resulting in the Board being short of funds at times. A Board should always have its finances in a sound state. In giving particulars of the time members of the Board ordinarily devoted to their duties, Mr. Garland said members would give up a full day a week, and a Chairman three days a week. Dr. Roberton: Arc there many members of the community who could afford that time?—l suppose there are. Are manj' prepared to do it?—l don't know. I won't be prepared to do it after this year. (Laughter.) Witness said he could not say if members of the Board had had previous experience of hospital administration, but he did not think the members of the present Board had had a medical education, which would be an advantage. He did not remember if necessary improvements at the Hospital or a change of policy had been deferred on account of the election of a new Board approaching. Dr. Roberton: What led up to the appointment of Dr. Collins to the Hospital? Was it a public agitation against the Hospital being " run by two boys " ?—Witness said the Board had to acknowledge this, and communicated with the honorary staff, asking their advice on the matter. A reply was received, partly affirming the appointment of a Senior Medical Officer, at a salary of £500 a year. Witness subsequently admitted that the honorary staff favoured the appointment of three medical men, and that he regarded the alternative suggested by the honorary staff, that Dr. Inglis be promoted to Superintendent, with an increased salary, as an affirmative reply. As the staff would terminate their appointments in nine months from that time, the Board did not give much consideration to the recommendation of the staff. A letter was written to the staff in reply, and Dr. Pentreath (secretary of the staff at that time) wrote about four months later. Prior to Dr. Collins's appointment the Board had it strongly impressed on them that the man appointed should have had some experience in surgical work, and the members of the Board had that in their mind in making the appointment they did. They realised it was necessary to have a man able to assume responsibility for operations in the absence of the honorary surgeons. Probably the best and legitimate course to adopt would be to take the advice of the honorary staff, but he further admitted that the advice given by the staff in regard to the appointment of Dr. Inglis was disregarded. The letter written to Dr. Pentreath, as secretary of the honorary staff, remitting recommendations, was referred to by Dr. Roberton. Mr. Garland stated that Dr. Collins attended Board meetings, but did not vote. Did you intend that he should vote at the meetings of the honorary staff?—l did not look at it in that way. The rule regarding the Senior Medical Officer being the medium of communication between the honorary staff and the Board had, the witness said, been honoured more in the breach than the observance. He did not distinctly remember a recent case in which he objected to a communication because it did not go through the Senior Medical Officer. Witness said the Senior Medical Officer was made responsible for the giving of anaesthetics, because there were some deaths under chloroform, but the responsibility had been removed since the appointment of an honorary anaesthetist. Dr. Roberton: Are Rules 56 and 75 compatible? One says the Senior Officer shall assist at operations, and the other that he may delegate the administration of anaesthetics, but shall be responsible to the Board in case of doubt as to proper administration?— Yes, 1 think so. Is it fair to put such duties on the Senior Officer—assisting at operations and making him responsible for the giving of anaesthetics, which he could not control?—lt does not seem fair. What was the object of the Board in wishing the Senior Officer to attend meetings of the staff?—l don't know. What effect it had I cannot tell, not being present. Are you in favour of continuing the rule?—l cannot tell. I will tell in a month's time. Mr. Garland said the Senior Medical Officer was often consulted in hospital work. Personally, he had not consulted him in the appointment of the honorary staff, but he believed they consulted in regard to the appointment of Dr. Neil to the honorary staff. Dr. Roberton: Do you think it wise to consult on such a matter? —Of course I do.

XO—H. 22a,