ne Cosures 2-8.
606
interrupted Mr. Eves rode in himself to Kowloon to summon immediate Medical assistance. At about 6.30 p.m. that evening he met Dr. Thomson, the responsible Medical Officer, and asked him to go and see Mr. Ross informing him that he had a launch with steam up at Lokloha awaiting his arrival there. Dr. Thomson after hearing a description of the symptoms of the case declined to proceed to Taipo until the following morning. Mr. Eves thereupon called upon Dr. Aubrey, a local practitioner, who undertook to attend to the case at once.
3.
When these facts were brought to my notice I called for a full report on the matter, which, together with my final decision, is embodied in enclosures Nos. 2 to 8 in this Despatch.
I would observe, in view of the statements in Dr. Thomson's final letter (a) that my minute of 2nd October in which I informed him that I "disapproved of his action in this matter" was (as seems sufficiently evident from the correspondence) based primarily on the verdict of the Principal Civil Medical Officer and that Dr. Aubrey's letter had no influence whatever on the conclusion at which I had arrived; (b) that my disapproval was limited to his action in this particular matter.
ne Cosures 2-8.
606
interrupted Mr. Eves rode in himself to Kowloon to summon
immediate Medical assistance. At about 6.30 p.m. that
evening he met Dr. Thomson, the responsible Medical
Officer, and asked him to go and see lir. Ross informing
him that he had a launch with steam up at Lokloha awaiting
his arrival there. Dr. Thomson after hearing a description
of the symptoms of the case declined to proceed to Taipo
until the following morning. Mr. Eves thereupon called
upon Dr. Aubrey, a local practitioner, who undertook to
attend to the case at once.
3.
When these facts were brought to
my notice I called for a full report on the matter, which,
together with my final decision, is embodied in enclosures
Nos. 2 to 8 in this Despatch.
I would observe, in view of the
statements in Dr. Thomson's final letter (a) that my
minute of 2nd. October in which I informed him that I
"disapproved of his action in this matter" was (as seems
sufficiently evident from the correspondence) based primari-
-ly on the verdict of the Principal Civil Medical Officer
and that Dr. Aubrey's letter had no influence whatever on
the conclusion at which I had arrived; (b) that my dis-
-approval was limited to his action in this particular
matter
z (ཨན་
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.