Complaints Of Sons’ Treatment (Press, 15 August 1963)

On 14 August 1963, an inquiry was underway at Cherry Farm Hospital in Dunedin, led by Mr W. H. Reid, the district inspector under the Mental Health Act. The inquiry was sparked by allegations involving a hospital staff member referred to as "X", along with other related complaints. This marked the seventh day of the investigation, which included various legal counsel representing staff, former patients, and other interested parties. During the proceedings, two fathers expressed their concerns regarding the treatment of their sons while they were patients at the hospital. One witness, identified as patient "S", detailed his experience of alleged neglect regarding an injury to his foot. He recounted having left the hospital the previous September and having to walk nearly 100 miles over three weeks to avoid being seen. Nurse "Q", who was responsible for patient "S", suggested that he might have been "malingering" rather than genuinely injured. A staff doctor eventually confirmed that although initial examinations suggested only a sprain, a subsequent X-ray revealed a fracture thirteen days later. Another father complained about a lack of cooperation from the hospital staff concerning his son, patient "R". He recounted a statement made by nurse "K", which implied that the hospital was an inappropriate place for his son, who had previous interactions with the justice system. Nurse "K" denied making any such comments. The medical superintendent, Dr. C. S. Moore, acknowledged that patient "R" had spent considerable time in seclusion because of his behaviour, explaining the balance of care required between patients and public safety. Testimonies continued with nurse "R", a student who observed "X" on a patient's bed when he should not have been on duty in that ward. He claimed that after reporting this incident, he was asked to resign due to concerns about his performance and not specifically related to the observation of "X". Patient "T", who had been discharged, testified that he had received electric shock treatment after raising concerns about the hospital's operations. He initially reported some favouritism and alleged homosexual tendencies associated with "X", although he later described "X" as supportive and asserted that he believed "X" was innocent of any wrongdoing. When questioned about whether he had been coerced into making a complaint against "X", patient "T" admitted feeling pressured but contextualised his annoyance within a personal dispute regarding his relationships. Overall, the inquiry highlighted serious concerns regarding the treatment of patients, the communication between staff and families, as well as accusations against staff members that prompted significant scrutiny of hospital practices.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand