HC Deb 16 March 1896 vol 38 cc1013-4
MR. HAYDEN

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that a charge of neglect of duty has been made to the Local Government Board against the medical officer of the Mitchelstown dispensary district of the County of Cork, for not attending and treating a dangerous case of extensive and deep burns admitted recently to the Mitchelstown Workhouse; whether he is aware that an inquiry has been demanded by a responsible officer of the Mitchelstown Union who made the charge; and, have any of the statements contained in it been refuted or denied; and, if not, will he take steps to hold a sworn inquiry?

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Cork Co., N. E.)

I wish to know whether the responsible officer of Mitchelstown Union, Dr. Walsh, who makes this charge against a brother medical practitioner, is the defendant in an action for libel at the suit of this gentleman, Dr. O'Brien. I also wish to ask whether, as a matter of fact, the charge made against his brother practitioner, with reference to a patient who was admitted to Mitchelstown Workhouse on the 14th of December, was not brought under the notice of the Local Government Board until the middle of January; also whether the Local Government Board have not been satisfied as to the explanation given, and whether the Mitchelstown Board of Guardians, at a meeting held on March 5th, have not expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with the explanation of Dr. O'Brien?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I have no information as to the first part of the supplementary Question. The other parts of the Question are, I think, answered in the reply to the other Question on the Paper. It is true that a charge of the nature indicated was recently preferred against the medical officer of the Mitchelstown dispensary district by an officer occupying a responsible position in the Union. The communication containing this charge was forwarded to the dispensary doctor for his explanatory observations, and these observations were under the consideration of the Board of Guardians at their meeting held on the 5th inst., when they expressed themselves quite satisfied that no blame attached to the doctor in the matter.