HC Deb 21 April 1910 vol 16 cc2320-1

asked the President of the Local Government Board with reference to the Hemel Hempstead workhouse infirmary case, whether the two rules which the Department allege were broken by Nurse Bellamy could apply to her case, inasmuch as the one requiring the presence of a nurse in every case of bathing the sick, expressly applied only where the medical officer had given instructions, and the other, requiring information to be given to the medical officer by the nurses, expressly applied only in cases of doubt, whereas in this case the medical officer admitted that he had given no instructions, and all the three assistant nurses agreed that there was no doubt, and in fact no information could have been given as the medical officer did not attend at the infirmary until he was sent for, after the man had had the bath complained of; why under these circumstances anyone, and this nurse in particular, was prosecuted for culpable negligence in an alleged breach of rules which had been proved to be inapplicable to this case; and whether he will repair as far as possible the stain on her character, created by the repetition and publication of a charge from which she had already been fully acquitted by a competent court of law, and publicly and unreservedly withdraw it and confirm such withdrawal by a letter to her that she may produce in case of need?


I have already explained co my hon. Friend that I consider that the rules were applicable to the case he refers to. I have also explained that I had no jurisdiction in regard to the prosecution of the nurse. I am not prepared to write to the nurse such a letter as my hon. Friend suggests.