Editorial: Hospital will always be the Starship

What's in a name? Much more than we imagined. We were among the many who made fun of the name Starship when it was adopted by the Auckland children's hospital. Long ago we had to concede that the name had not only "stuck", it had become a striking success in both of its intended purposes.

The purposes of the name were both therapeutic and commercial. It was said a name such as Starship, as well as the appearance and lively design of the hospital, would render the institution less frightening and maybe a little glamorous to children who were seriously ill. It was also hoped the name would be a popular and instantly recognisable brand for fundraising purposes. So it has proved. Appeals for equipment for the Starship always attract donors, sponsors, event organisers and celebrities.

Now it seems the Starship brand is too successful for the liking of the Auckland District Health Board. Public hospitals are not commercial products, grumbles chairman Wayne Brown. "There is nothing special about the children's hospital," he said. And he did not think children ought to be attracted to hospital.

Let's deal with the last objection first. We doubt that Mr Brown and his board seriously believe that children might want to be sick enough that they get to go to the Starship. Any glamour the hospital has acquired might just be a little consolation for the unfortunate children who have to be admitted. Let's not waste further argument on a silly suggestion.

Mr Brown's real concern about the Starship is its commercial success. Its brand has given it an independent source of finance and that undoubtedly causes problems for the District Health Board. If the Starship was totally self-funding there would be no problem, but it is not. It is a public hospital run on funds raised from taxpayers. In addition, it has its own fundraising foundation that can provide the paediatricians with facilities and equipment beyond what they are given by the District Health Board.

If those extra facilities and equipment are in line with the board's spending priorities for all of Auckland's health services, there would be no problem. But if they are outside the priorities, it is easy to see the board's dilemma. It is one thing to raise independent funds for capital purchases but the running costs will fall on the public purse.

One or two of the Starship's purchases of late have sounded like a duplication of equipment available at the main hospital alongside. But if that is the board's cause of concern, there would seem to be better ways of resolving it. The board could refuse to meet the running costs of equipment it considered superfluous. The paediatricians would respond by putting public pressure on the board, but the board should be prepared to defend its priorities.

And we are talking, after all, about a brand that raised money for a public health service. How bad can that be? Whatever tensions it might cause within the board's allocations, it seems odd to destroy an independent source of funds. Every dollar the Starship can raise for itself could leave one more tax dollar in the kitty to be used by services that do not have the same ability to pull at the heartstrings.

Unfortunately, it sounds like Mr Brown and his board are intent upon destroying the Starship brand entirely. They mean to remove the name from official references, substituting it with a name as mealy-mouthed as they can manage: Auckland City Hospital Children's Services. That at least will never catch on. In fact, the name Starship is now so well established that the board may be unable to remove it from popular use. Whether Mr Brown likes it or not, it will always be the Starship. He must leave its name intact.