The Hospital Problem : the Report of a Special Conference of Labour, Hospital, Medical and kindred Societies
1924 1924 1920s 12 pages 4 Mr. L. A. Hill (Association of Approved Societies) strongly supported Mr. Somerville Hastings's suggestion with regard to the Poor Law infirmaries, if for no other reason than that of removing the pauper taint attached to such institutions. Dr. Astley Clarke (Brit...
| Institution: | MCR - The Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick |
|---|---|
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
London : The Labour Party ; printed at the Office of the British Medical Association
1924
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10796/462AD2B6-7D98-42ED-99AD-31B9BA7721B4 http://hdl.handle.net/10796/5AF7EAE0-ACDE-48E5-BCAE-24AB0133E007 |
| Summary: | 1924
1924
1920s
12 pages
4 Mr. L. A. Hill (Association of Approved Societies) strongly supported Mr. Somerville Hastings's suggestion with regard to the Poor Law infirmaries, if for no other reason than that of removing the pauper taint attached to such institutions. Dr. Astley Clarke (British Medical Association) controverted the statement of Mr. Somerville Hastings with regard to the patients' view of voluntary hospitals. On the board of the Leicester Hospital there was a large element of working men who had been found to be of great assistance to the board. They were the very last men to desire a State service. It was almost a fetish in that part of the country voluntarily to support hospitals. He thought Mr. Somerville Hastings had lost sight of the mentality of those people whose desire it was to help their fellows. Dr. Wilfrid Fox (St. George's Hospital) said there seemed to be some misapprehension with regard to the admission of cases into London hospitals. Patients were not admitted by those who knew anything about their means at all; they were admitted entirely on medical grounds by the doctors, who never knew anything about their means. He was of opinion that before any change took place the question should be asked whether anything better could be put in place of the present system. Lady Barrett (Medical Women's Federation) remarked that the present was a transition stage, when, for the first time, an effort was being made to alter the motive power which made for the health of this country. Hitherto that motive power had sprung from the great voluntary agencies, which were doing most excellent work, and those who intimately knew the work of hospitals viewed with very great dismay any suggestion which would stultify that motive power. Within the hospitals there were three groups of people working — the medical profession, the nursing profession, and the lay boards, who had between them produced a most wonderful system of efficient work. The danger of losing something which was a great force for health ought to lead to very serious consideration before any measures were adopted likely to do away with the work which had hitherto been done. Sir Thomas Neill urged the continuance of the voluntary hospital system because of the spirit of self-sacrifice which it evoked. Dr. Ethel Bentham (Labour Party Public Health Advisory Committee) said that no one denied that the voluntary hospitals had done a great amount of good work, but the question was whether this instrument, fortuitously evolved, was adequate for the needs of the community. She pointed out the lack of co-ordination in the present system and its extreme wastefulness. Mr. Bishop Harman gave some figures as to hospital accommodation in England and Wales, from which it appeared that, taking the beds provided in hospitals of every kind, voluntary and Poor Law, but excluding the host of nursing homes, the total was 362,000 beds, or almost 10 for every 1,000 in a population of 38,000,000. In the United States, counting in all the nursing homes, there were only 8 beds per 1,000 of population. The Labour party document which asserted a deficit of 107,000 beds did not give the true facts of the case. Mr. G. P. Blizard (Secretary, Labour Party Public Health Advisory Committee) said that the British Medical Association had had to assemble on two or three occasions to discuss the word "voluntary," and had finally decided that the essence of the voluntary system was voluntary management. The Labour party would not boggle at a word; all it asked for was efficiency. Who would deny that the hospitals in London at present were competitive? Mr. H. S. Souttar (British Medical Association) said that the only test for admission to his own hospital was the medical condition of the patient. He denied absolutely that the ability of the patient to pay was a determining factor in admissions. The voluntary hospitals had done a great work in this country, and he did not think that by any process of Government control they could improve upon them. But by relieving them of their financial difficulties the service could be extended so as to include the whole community. Dr. Alan Todd referred to the disabilities of the middle class so far as hospitals were concerned. He also remarked on the absence of any suggestion in the Labour party's pamphlet as to how the Poor Law infirmaries, if taken over, should be staffed. Dr. H. B. Morgan (Labour Party Advisory Committee) agreed that a great deal of the criticism levelled at the Poor Law infirmaries was justified, and the Labour party, he thought, would do something for the reform of the Poor Law infirmary service. To speak of the present Poor Law infirmary system as the only alternative to the voluntary hospital system was beside the point. Dr. A. Bygott (Labour Party Advisory Committee) said that as a medical officer of health during the last fourteen years he had found great difficulties in getting patients into voluntary hospitals, and he had regretted that beds were not at the disposal of the public health authority. Mr. S. R. Lamb gave an account of the joint council which has been set up in Sheffield to support the hospitals. On that council the corporation, boards of guardians, the trades and labour council, the university, the hospitals themselves, and the subscribers were all represented, and there was a liaison between the voluntary and the Poor Law hospitals. A voluntary levy of one penny in the pound on wages had been cheerfully accepted by 180,000 people in Sheffield and district. Mr. Somerville Hastings, in reply, took up Lord Knutsford's statement that 43 per cent. of the patients treated in the London Hospital were unable to pay anything. The London Hospital was founded for those very people. The proportion of them formerly must have been nearer 100 per cent., and the figure Lord Knutsford had given bore out the statement in the Labour party's pamphlet that the hospitals were being increasingly used by the skilled artisans, by the lower middle and even by the professional classes. The Labour party had no objection to the use of Poor Law infirmaries for the purpose of convalescent homes, but some speakers should have known better than to have suggested that the present Poor Law infirmaries were a fair sample of State-aided hospitals. THE VOLUNTARY HOSPITAL VIEW. At the afternoon session, under the chairmanship of Dr. A. Bygott, Medical Officer of Health for West Suffolk, Viscount Knutsford, Chairman of the London Hospital, introduced "The Voluntary Hospital View." Lord Knutsford said that he did not think that the voluntary hospitals met present-day needs, but he believed that they might easily be made to do so. If the Labour party could propose anything better than the voluntary hospitals, anything which would more effectively diminish suffering, no prejudices of his own would prevent him from giving it his adhesion. But what was the State's record? Was it an encouraging one, one to be proud of? He thought that the State stood in the dock with many previous convictions for neglect. The sick had been handed over by the State to Guardians of the Poor, and the State had done little or nothing to see that the Guardians carried out their duty. In 1909, only fifteen years ago, it was shown by the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission that two-thirds of the sick poor under the Poor Law were cared for in general workhouses, buildings never intended for sick people at all. Even to-day he doubted whether there were twenty Poor Law infirmaries in England where insulin was provided for patients, or where sufferers from rheumatism received any proper treatment by means of electric baths or anything else. The object of the guardians had been to do as little for the poor as possible, and to hedge round what little they did with all manner of difficulties. The people of England, speaking generally, would rather die than go into Poor Law infirmaries. It was just the same when the State came to deal with invalid soldiers. The State had always cramped the Army Medical Service for money. How would the soldiers in the late war have fared if everything had been left to the State, and nothing had been done by the voluntary hospitals, by the Red Cross, and (for blinded soldiers) by St. Dunstan's? Of course, the State was quite right in getting all the voluntary help it could, but it shirked its duties. Military hospitals could not compare with voluntary hospitals either in equipment or staff. He agreed that our soldiers had been a good deal better off than the soldiers of other countries, also that the heads of the medical departments of the army and the navy had done the best they could, but they were cramped all the time by State niggardliness. So long as any department was connected with the State, the bare duty might be done, but no grace would be added to that duty. There never could be a heartbeat in a Government department. Lord Knutsford went on to contend that the voluntary hospitals had proved satisfactory. They had brought to the sick poor the very best medical and nursing attendance. The poorest man in the country could come to the hospital and have at his bedside the same surgeon who had been in attendance on his King. All progress in medicine and surgery had been made through the voluntary hospitals; there was an elasticity of management in such institutions which was essential to progress. Their staffs were wonderful. Every extra pressure was met. There was never any word about " downing tools "; there were no complaints about overtime. No doctor or nurse ever thought of the terms of his or her bond. He himself had been associated with large businesses and with various organizations, but in no walk of life had he met the spirit which animated the voluntary hospital. (Applause.) In those institutions, at all events, there was no want of imagination. Turning to the pamphlet The Labour Movement and the Hospital Crisis he spoke scathingly of its description of voluntary hospitals as pauperizing agencies. Pauperizing agencies indeed ! Was it pauperizing a fellow to help him when he was down? If this was pauperizing let them tear up the Sermon on the Mount and take to the Charity Organization bible, but by all means
36/L41/1/8 |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | TEXT |