The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published Every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Morning. Tuesday, January 21, 1890. AFFAIRS AT THE HOSPITAL.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 406, 21 January 1890, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published Every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Morning.

Tuesday, January 21, 1890. AFFAIRS AT THE HOSPITAL.

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country’s, Thy God’s, and truth’s.

On Saturday we published the evidence taken by the Hospital Trustees in the enquiry held by them on Thursday night. The gentlemen who conducted that enquiry were in every way fitted for the pur. pose, and it is questionable whether on any committee which had not been primarily appointed to hold such an enquiry, it would have been possible by chance to have secured a combination of persons so competent to undertake the task. Two of the Trustees are Justices of the Peace, two more are solicitors, while the remaining three gentlemen (Messrs Brown, Hepburn, and Harris), though not occupying the position either of Justices or solicitors, are well known as men of sound common sense and matured judgment. With such favorable circumstances to start with, it would have been remarkable had the enquiry not been set about in a proper spirit. Every opportunity was given to the persons who had laid complaints to come forward and substantiate their statements, and the Trustees, without exception, evinced a strong desire to sift the matters thoroughly. vVe are particularly pleased to see that the Trustees were not influenced by any feelings of false delicacy for any person or persons connected with the Hospital, and conducted the enquiry in as open and above-board manner as it was possible to do. As a consequence, the public are now placed in possession of all the important facts that were brought out, and are able to judge for themselves on how much foundation the various complaints may have rested. If there was anything to complain of in regard to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted, it would perhaps be found in a certain prolixity in the proceedings, but this was really a manifestation of the impartiality of the Trustees, and was due to their anxiety to get at the whole truth of the matters. The first complaint—that of Mrs Lave-rock—-was a very serious one, containing as it did not only a charge of ill-treatment, but what is far worse, an allegation that death had been accelerated by if it was not the result of such treatment. The charges were levelled against the matron and the surgeon—in the one case, that duties had been neglected ; in the other, that the doctor was ignorant of an important branch of medicine, and was therefore incapable of holding his position in the Hospital. The mother mourns the loss bf n child who was perhaps deaf td her,

and every sympathy must be extended to her in her sad bereavement. We can quite understand what the feelings of such an one must be, but after hearing the evidence we can come to no other conclusion than that the mother has allowed her grief to overcome her judgment, and, as is only too natural under the circumstances, has unconsciously exaggerated trifles until she really believes that the child has met with an untimely death. In the face of Dr Innes’ certificate, the charge against the surgeon of the Hospital as treating for a wrong disease, must fall to the ground, and if the doctor’s diagnosis of the disease was correct, it must be assumed that his treatment of the disease was proper. With regard to the matron, the position becomes moie difficult to consider. With the exception of

the complaint that the matron was discourteous to the mother, the whole facts rest between two people. Even if that discourtesy were proved, we do not think it would affect the question, because, although the matron is supposed to treat her patients kindly, it would be nonsense to stipulate that she should be affable to the whole world, although it would certainly be presumed that a person in such a position would at least cor form to the ordinary rules of politeness, With this exception, however, there is one person’s word against another — indeed, the mother’s statement is for the most part hearsay. It is, however, this fact that only hearsay evidence can be produced that adds to the seriousness of the accusations. What the mother has said was supposed to have been told her by her now dead child, and it is impossible to recall the child to substantiate the statement. There are, however, many things which must be considered before forming a judgment on the matter, such as the state the child was in when she was supposed to have made the state ments, the fact that the matron was not present when they were made, and the tendency there would be in the circumstances for the mother to unconsciously exaggerate Coupled with these disadvantages, we have the direct denial of the charges by the matron. Under the circumstances, we do not see what other decision could have been arrived at than that come to by the Trustees. With regard to Burch’s complaint, the allegations appear on their face to be frivolous, but it must be remembered that the petty annoyances that he complained of, ludicrous as they may appear to persons in health, are just things which are most hurtful to the feelings of sick people. Even a book may be removed in a pleasant and an unpleasant way. Mr Burch was very.ready to admit his faults, and acknowledged, before being asked, that he had broken the rules on one occasion. The difficulty about Burch’s complaint was that the annoyances were so petty that they could not be reduced to writing, but if it were true that he suffered annoyance, however petty, such things ought not to happen, and their pettiness would be no excuse for them. We should have liked to have seen the Trustees follow out the question of the draught being administered, not that it has done any person any harm, but upon it hinges a point as to who is speaking the truth. The matron said she would not have given such a draught to Burch unless it was ordered by him or by the doctor. The doctor had not ordered it, Mr Burch said he bad not, and as the nurse had given it, it would have been better to have got her evidence, although she was not at the time available, and to find out why she had given it.

The case of Mr Milne is the most serious, not because the acts complained of were any worse in their degree than the others would have been had they been proved, but because in this complaint there was present what was wanting in the others, some direct evidence of the matters. The matron herself admitted taking hold of Milne’s hand to reach it to the chair at the bedside, Mr Burch and another patient witnessed it; the only question was as to whether it was done roughly or not. On being questioned the doctor said that any movement, however slight, of the arm, must have been painful, while a patient said that Milne had cried out. The doctor said the matron had perhaps done it in ignorance of how Milne was suffering, but we should think it would be the duty of a person in the matron’s place to make herself acquainted with the injuries of a patient as soon as possible after he was admitted. The doctor also stated that he had remonstrated with the nurse for her conduct on another occasion, The matron herself admitted that she might have been cool to Milne and considered herself justified by the language he had used towards her. A matron should be made of sterner stuff than that which will take notice of the sayings of a patient while in a paroxysm of pain. The Trustees have not decided on this matter as yet, They are taking evidence which may perhaps have a bearing upon other parts of the complaint, but which cannot affect the facts that we have stated. We, therefore, feel no compunction in commenting upon those facts in the interests of the public. Jt is, however, not on Individual cases that we have come to the conclusion that things are not as they should be at the Hospital, but on the facts adduced by the three complaints. It is very evident that there is not that confidence in the matron that is necessary to the well-being of the institution. No one will suppose that three persons have entered into a conspiracy to injure the matron, and jet those three persons, from different standpoints, appear to have come to a similar conclusion. We can quite understand how a patient may be crotchety and make complaints, but that a fever patient, a strong man with a broken leg, and a man who had his ribs, Ins collar bone, and his arm broken, should imbibe a strong aversion to one and the same person while they speak highly of the others who attended them seems inexplicable if that person is all that a matron should be. The Gisborne Hospital was singularly free from complaints by patients during the terms of Miss Houldgate’s predecessors. The only conclusion' we can arrive at is the fault must Ji® with Miss Houldgate herself. She was evidently not so patient and kind as she might be, and as we have no doubt she

can be when occasion requires, and a little more consideration on her part would do much to make things move more smoothly. Miss Houldgate has proved herself a careful administrator in other ways and we do not think the charges against her, although proved, would j.ustify the Trustees in taking any extreme action. But without any desire to force the hands of the Trustees we submit that jn justice to the public they cannot altogether overlook the matter, after what has come out in Milne’s case. None of the complainants, we feel sure, desired to press their charges from any personal feeling against the matron, and as the steps they took were in the interests of the public they would be satisfied if those interests were conserved, From the statement of the other patients it appears that Miss Houldgate can exercise patience and gentleness when she lleases, and the Trustees should admonish ler to make no distinction among the patients, but to treat all alike. This would prevent future troubles and enable the public to regain their confidence in the institution, jf, however, it is inherent in the matron’s nature to make distinctions and to treat one patient well and another harshly, the trustees will have but one alternative in case any well-grounded complaint should be laid before them In (ha future, “