833

Thompson, who gave some interesting reminiscences, andby Dr. Champneys, who spoke of his associations with SirJohn Williams.

Sir JOHN E. ERICHSEN, in responding, expressed the grati-fication he felt for the reception which had been accorded tohim that evening. The distinction which had been conferred

upon him by Her Majesty was most gratifying, but therewas the proverbial drop of bitter in the cup. "It comestoo late." In looking down that long vista of his life whichextended from the commencement of his work to the presentday, he could truly say that he had ever tried to

so shape his work that it might conduce to maintain thehonour and dignity of the profession to which he belonged,both in public and in private. If there was one matter more

gratifying to him than another it was that the distinctionconferred upon him was not a personal one but was conferredthrough an individual upon the profession. The public atlarge knew little of the inner life of the profession, ofthe great intellectual activity of its members, of its

splendid achievements in scientific work, of its devotion toduty, and of its self-sacrifice in the cause of charity. Thesecharacteristics were common to the humblest as well as themost exalted members of the profession, from the dresserwho imperils his life in attending to a patient to thework of Presidents of the Royal Colleges. The debtof gratitude which he owed to University College hecould never repay, the opportunities in early life forachieving whatever success he bad attained and the forma-tion of many friendships. To be president of UniversityCollege was one of the highest honours which could befall aprofessional man, especially when he was the successor ofsuch men as Lord Brougham, Mr. Grote, Lord Belper, andLord Kimberley.SirJ. RUSSELL REYNOLDS said that nothing could be more

gratifying to any member of the medical profession than thatevening had proved to him. He stood between his oldmaster, Sir John Erichsen. who was subsequently his col-

league and always his friend, and Sir John Williams,an old pupil, then his colleague and afterwards his ftiend.Something had lately been said about University Collegebeing a favoured one, but it had always enjoyed a largeshare of University honours, and had been productiveof men of distinction not only in the medical but also in thelegal professions. In the former he mentioned Sir JosephLister and Sir Richard Quain, and in the latter Sir G. Jesseland the present Lord Chancellor. Sir Russell Reynolds thenconcluded a brilliant little speech by relating a personalanecdote. He was called to see a gentleman, and the nextday a friend of his called upon the patient. On the friend

inquiring of the butler how the gentleman was. he replied,"Oh, he is much better and quite happy now. He has justseen Sir Joshua Reynolds, the president of the RoyalAcademy." "Sir JOHN WILLIAMS also responded.Sir WILLIAM BROADBENT proposed the health of the

Chairman, remarking that he did not think any honoursbestowed within his recollection had been received with suchunanimous goodwill and support on behalf of the professionas those which had been conferred upon their guests.During the evening Dr. F. Roberts admirably rendered the

charming ballad The Anchor ’s Weighed."

THE WOMEN’S FREE HOSPITAL,SOUTHAMPTON.

WE have received the following statement from the Hon.Secretaries of the Southampton Medical Society with a

request, as will be seen, for its publication :-"Certain facts relating to the constitution, management,

and work of the above hospital having come to the know-ledge of several members of the Southampton MedicalSociety in the course of their individual practices, and alsoto the members generally in the ordinary course of the workof the society, which are deemed by them to be of seriouspublic importance, we are instructed by the society to requestthe Editors of THE LANCET, in the public interest, to pub-lish the following statement of facts :-"In November, 1889, a few persons met and discussed the

subject of starting in Southampton a free hospital for thetreatment of the special diseases of women, and a committeeof five was appointed and the hospital started at 1, Bellevue-

terrace. In June, 1890, it was removed to 17, Ordnance-road, and in June, 1891, to 2, Middle Portland-terrace, andsince then the out-patients’ department has been removed to.a new building in Portland-terrace, where it is now carriedon. Professor Lawson Tait was stated to be the consultingsurgeon and Mr. Eliot the medical oflicer. Subsequently thecommittee announced that Dr. Playfair had consented to actas consulting physician, and had promised his support. The:committee, with the hospital thus formed and staffed, inabout December, 1891, issued an urgent appeal to the public.for support, and in each of the three reports subsequentlyissued by them a similar appeal is made. This appeal has insome small degree been responded to by public subscriptions.and donations.

"Notwithstanding that the hospital is called ’free,’ itappears from the reports issued by the committee that.patients require letters of recommendation, to be renewedtevery two months, subscribers of one guinea annually receiv-ing seven letters, those subscribing 10.’!. 6d. three letters, andthose subscribing 58. one letter. In-patients have to pay themedical officer a sum of two guineas a week and are treatedat his private surgical home. which in an extract from a.

newspaper notice incorporated in an advertisement of the.home contained in a local directory is described as a placewhere patience and kindness combined with vast experienceand skill can hardly fail to bring about a speedy recovery.’That the committee are responsible for the in-patients as.well as the out-patients is shown by the fact that in theirpublished statement of the patients treated they include in-patients. In their first report they state that a ward hasbeen efficiently fitted up ...... with all modern appliances forthe reception of in-patients’ ; and they add, ’As soon as.funds will permit all such cases will be offered the boon ofbeing admitted for treatment as in-patients at the hospital.’’In their second report they state that an arrangement had been.

made with their medical officer to receive hospital patients ata charge of two guineas a week, payable by the patient; at ahouse he had taken for his private patients ; and the medical’officer, in his report to the committee-which was adopted

i by them and published with their report-stated, ’I am glad: to state we can now treat in-patients and out-patients under! a different roof.’ In his report the medical cfficer thought: right to inform the committee that he had a good staff oft nurses thoroughly trained in the special branch of work they1were engaged in. This seems to imply a most incrediblet ignorance on the part of the committee as to matters they1 should have under their control. In their third report thetcommittei state that patients requiring operations have1 been admitted into beds set apart for hospital patients at. 8, Carlton-crescent, according to the arrangement that the-t committce made with their medical officer last year.’ The1 medical cflicer, in his report, adopted and published by the

committee, states, I have admitted cases for operations,into 8, Carlton-crescent,’ and adds that twenty-four

eabdominal sections have been performed, in addition to others operations.’ In a letter from the hon. secretary to theLi hospital in answer to an inquiry for information, under datea July 16.b, 1894, he &ta,tes: ’The in-patients have been

treated at Rockstone House ’ (or 8. Carlton- crescent) I ine the free ward,’ and adds the somewhat extraordinary state--

ment, 11 I am not in a position to answer your question, not-having access to the books.’"The reports of the committee contain no statement of the

number of patients treated, distinguishing in-patients fromout-patients, or any detailed particulars of the operationsperformed, or the deaths after operation, as is usually givenin reports of a like kind. The published accounts are also.very meagre, giving no particulars of the sums paid by

’

patients or the cost of in-patients. In their second reportathe committee state that their medical officer asked for per-

mission to furnish rooms at 2. Middle Portland-terrace (the-, house used as the hospital) for his private patients, and suchr- permission was given ; but. although the charity bore the rent

and other expenses of the house, no reference is made in theo accounts of any sum received from the medical officer for-k the accommodation thus afforded him.is

’’ Seeing that (1) the committee were taking on themselvest the responsibility of very serious operations involving risk of3- life, and which, if not absolutely necessary, were merely

useless mutilations ; (2) there was only one medical officerte residing in Southampton, the consulting surgeon residing inte Birmingham and the consulting physician in London ; (3) the? hospital is styled ’free,’ while letters of recommendatione- are required and in-patients are expected to pay two guineas

834

a week; (4) the committee seem not to have any proper control k.over the in-patients’ department; and (5) the absence of tules to govern the hospital, the Medical Society, as repre- renting the profession, felt that a grave responsibility rested t

on them, and the matter having been formally brought to their notice on Nov. 6th, 1894, in a paper on the subject read before them by Mr. Bullar, it was resolved that a copy of Mr. Bullar’s paper be sent to each member of the com-

mittee of the Women’s free Hospital, and also that infor- i

mation be asked for on the following points : (a) the number - of in-patients that have been treated, (b) the diseases from 1which they suffered, (c) the number and nature of the opera- tions performed, (d) the result of the operations, and (e) the mortality after operations and general mortality.’ !

"To this communication the committee of the Women’s Free Hospital replied in a letter from their hon. secretary under<date of Dec. 5th, 1894, who, while repudiating any obliga-tion to give the Medical Society any information whatever. ’regretted the insufficiency of their reports in past years, and the committee stated that 24 abdominal sections had been performed in the ear 1893, involving 4 deaths, and of these lfir. Tait saw 19 and assisted at 12 of them ; but nowhere is 1

there any statement showing that the universal rule in theprofession, in hospital practice, not to perform a serious

<operation involving lisk to life, except under urgent necessity,without previous consultation, was followed. Appended tothe reply is a statement from the case and operation books ofthe hospital, giving particulars of the operations performed.From this statement and the reports it appears that in theyear 1893, of 215 patients treated at the hospital, 24, or 1 inevery 9, were submitted to abdominal section, whereas fromthe published reports of other similar special hospitals thecatio appears to be about 1 in 40.

"The reply of the committee was considered by the societyat a meeting onDec. 20th last, at which twenty-eight memberswere present, and with one dissentient the following resolu-tions were passed :&mdash;(1) ’ That in view of the frequency withwhich abdominal sections have been performed and advised atthe Women’s Free Hospital, and of the fact that operations have been performed without previous consultation of a satis-factory kind, the Medical Society feels that it is a matter of..grave doubt how far the operations have been justified. The’society is also of opinion that the management of the hospital’1s lax, and that the financial arrangements are most peculiar,’n a hospital called " Free." The Medical Society therefore’feels bound in the public interest to demand that an inquiryBinto the whole work and management of the hospital be heldby an independent and competent committee, as has recentlybeen done in the case of the Chelsea Hospital for Women.The society suggests this as a means whereby further pub-flicity may be avoided. The Medical Society is of opinion’that if the work of the hospital has been good an inquirycannot fail to benefit it, and that if it has been bad the com-mittee of the hospital cannot wish that it should continue.The Medical Society suggests that a committee of three be.appointed to hold the inquiry, and that one member be nomi-mated by the Women’s Free Hospital and one by the MedicalSociety, the third being nominated by the other two’ Thesecesolutions were sent to each member of the committee andmedical staff of the hospital, together with a letter, on

.J an. 7th last."Dr. Play fair, in a letter addressed to the committee of

the hospital, has stated in reference to the inquiry asked for,’ In my opinion it is one which should be at once carried out.When the work and management of a charitable institutionsuch as yours has been publicly impugned full inquiry shouldbe courted. Nothing could be better for such an institution’than a favourable report from a qualified and unbiased<committee of investigation. If this proposal is declined,the public will naturally come to the conclusion that thereria something it is wished to conceal.’ To these resolutions’the hon. secretary of the Women’s Free Hospital replied onb. 2od last, stating that the committee declined toadmit the right of the society to interfere in matters relating’to the constitution and government of the hospital,’ and!tha,t ’ the Medical Society have no right whatever to demand,an investigation of the affairs of the hospital.’ He further:added. that ’the issues involved are far too serious toravarrant my committee in agreeing to such a proposal as your’.society has made, it would not afford them that completesatisfaction which they are anxious to obtain,’ and proceeded’two state that it was the duty of the society to acquaint the-committee with the particulars of the evidence in theirpossession in support of the charges, and that upon this

being done the committee would have a full, impartial, atdthorough inventigation. He also stated that the committeewished to receive full particulars of the charges, so that

they, as the responsible governing body of the hospital,might have an opportunity of investigating them. Inthe same communication the committee, speaking of theirmedicf.l officer, state, ’it is perfectly well known thatMr. Eliot is specially skilled in cases of this kind’

(i.e., diseases peculiar to women) ...... ’and that his skillas a surgeon is too well known to need any confirmation attheir hands.’ The society have, however, been unable toascertain that he has ever made any exceptional study of thes objects of which his committee thus attribute to him a specialknowledge, or that he has done anything to differentiatehimself from the rank and file of general practitioners in thisparticular matter."The society, feeling that the committee, beirg the persons

responsible for the mismanagement of the hospital (if any),could not bring unbiased and impartial minds to bear on thesubject of the charges, instructed us to write on Feb. 7thlast declining to furnish the committee with the evidence inthe possession of the society, more especially as the com.mittee had already declared that they were ’loth to believewithout absolute proof that women could have operationsperformed on them unnecessarily.’ However, in deferenceto the wishes of the committee, we again repeatedthe charges in these words : ’1. That, having regard tothe appalling frequency with which abdominal sectionshave been performed in the Women’s Free Hospital(one in every nine of all patients treated), in some

instances without previous consultations of a satisfac.tory kind, and to the many instances known to our

committee in which similar operations were advised,though not performed, and now demonstrated to be un-necessary-which if included would seriously increase theratio-a grave suspicion arises that some at least of theoperations performed cannot be justified. 2. That themanagement of the hospital is lax. 3. That the financialarrangements are most peculiar in a hospital called ’free.’"We again asked if the demand of the society for an

inquiry would be complied with, and promised that the societywould lay the evidence in their possession before any unbiasedtribunal and give every assistance in their power to arriveatthe truth. On Feb. 13’.h last the hon. secretary ofthe hospital wrote to the society, stating that ’the

society having failed to bring any specific chargeagainst the hospital or its medical officers, as re-

quested in the letter referred to ’ (namely, his letter ofFeb. 2nd), ’my committee decline to continue the corre-spondence until this is done.’ In consequence of thecom-mittee declining the inquiry proposed, Dr. Playfair hasresigned his position as consulting physician to the hospital."The inquiry aked for having been refused, the Medical

Society feel it their duty, in the public interest, to ask theEditors of THE LANCET to publish this statement of whathas occurred, in order to relieve themselves of the respon-sibility in which silence on a matter of which they havepeculiar opportunities of being better informed than the

general public would involve them.R. D. H. GWILLIM,NORMAN ALDRIDGE,

" March 9th, 1895. Hon. Sees., Southampton Medical Society."We publish the statement of the hon. secretaries of the

Southampton Medical Society, agreeing with them that

prim&acirc; facie the matter is one that demands publicity. Wehave before us a copy of the annual report of the Women’sFree Hospital for Treatment of Special Diseases for 1894.This document, it appears to us, contains certain of the par’

, ticulars whose absence the secretaries of the SouthamptonMedical Scciety reprobate. On the other hand, it does not

, constitute in itself an answer to charges of mismanagement,: and that is what the communication from the secretaries

of the Southampton Medical Society amounts to.

WORCESTER DISPENSARY PROVIDENT MEDICALINSTITUTION.&mdash;The annual meeting of the supporters of theWorcester Provident Dispensary was held on March 26th, theRev. W. R. Longhurst being in the chair. The report showedthat the total number of names on the books was 9053, beingan increase of 100 upon last year’s figures. The financialstateof the institution was shown in the report to be satisfactory.