12 MAY 1961, Page 15

On the matter of the drip transfusion, I seem not

ti° have made myself clear. Obviously, as a layman, wouldn't have the faintest idea whether the drip should be continued for twelve hours at a time (as the consultant said he preferred) or sixty hours at a time (as the registrar had ordered) or 200 hours at a time. What I questioned was:

I. As the consultant's name was printed on my bed. and as the consultant's opinion—when it eventually was delivered—was treated as authorita- tive, should not the registrar already have been in- formed of the consultant's views? (My complaint is not a personal one against the registrar: it is against the system.) 2. If a medical technique is debatable, should it be debated in front of the patient?

On the matter of the bugs, 'BM, FRCS' and Dr. Sundlc expressed some incredulity. I, too, was sur- prised. The hospital, however, was not. Three months after the initial operation. when I was feeling less unwell, I wrote the hospital management, describing the things that had seemed to me both unfortunate arm avoidable. Concerning the hugs. I asked whether it was possible that their presence under the casualty operating table might lead to infection. The hospital's answer fell into two parts: 1. The hospital acknowledged the presence of the bugs I described.

2. Whether or not their presence might lead to infection, the hospital 'simply did not know.'— Yours faithfully,