THE MEDICAL TRADES UNION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 233, 29 September 1908, Page 4

THE MEDICAL TRADES UNION.

. OPINIONS BY PROMINENT MEDICAL MEN. AN ASSAULT UPON PUBLIC RIGHTS. (To the E" Sir.—Your editorial iurday last has struck terror into the hearts of the B.M.A. members. While it would not be littirg for mc to bestow any praise on it, I think that I may without impropriety make a few remarks about it. 1. In the first place, although I cordially agree with every sentence, I did r.ot write the article, nor any part of it, nor did I suggest it, or any of the arguments used. Strange as it may seem, it is the simple fact that you had become possessed of information Winch was quite new to mc. I had not, until I read your leader, my idea that any member of my profession, in any British, possession, bad bound himself by such ignominious chains as your article plainly described. My readers must please to remember that I was born free. I was a qualified member of the medical profession fou. years before the Medical Act of 1853 came into operation. Chris Romamis sum! And, ac I never voluntarily submitted myself to the handcuffs or the legfetters, P consider myself free still.

Of course, the new generation are content to be, as two or three have plainly stated, trades unionists. lam not. I do not hesitate to say that I think the position of a Doctor of Medicine or a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England is far above that of any mere trades unionist. Of course, I speak of a trades unionist only in that capacity. He may be a much better, wiser, more learned, abler man in a thousand ways than I am, but, as a trades unionist, bound aad fettered by any absurd rules his union may exact, I hold myself, as a free man, his superior.

When I joined the medical profession as a pupil-apprentice and student, I joined, as I thought, an honourable and learned profession, not a congregation of shopkeepers intent on selling their wares to the highest bidder. It was a profession that a gentleman might belong to, although there were plenty of practitioners who were not gentlemen. But it had an ethical code higher than that of any other profession, for it held that its members must consider the life, the health, the death or the recovery of their patients as matters of supreme importance, and to be placed before their own pecuniary interests, or their own health and, even in extreme cases, life.

There is one point on which the B.M.A. might, and I think ought, to utter a solemn bleat. How far does the contamination of these excommuricated ones extend? Suppose I give chloroform for one of them, I quite understand that I contract the moral leprosy with which he is affected by taking 14/ instead of 16/. But if, again, I give chloroform for a dentist, should I communicate the virus to him, and might he again give it to some other medical practitioner who innnocently administered an anaesthetic to one of his patients? These are serious questions. Is there any antiseptic ot germicidal process by which the boycotted one can be cleansed of his unrighteousneat and be admitted again to those happy realms of peace and purity where the lambs of the British Medical Association meet and frisk and gambol tojetner f i Could not something like the old Auto-1 da-fe of the Spanish Inquisition be arranged ? The penitent culprit, having re- I signed all his appointments, and paid a heavy fine, might be compelled, as a condition of perfect reconciliation, to pro- j menade Queen-street, Auckland, in a I yellow gown (the colour of the quarantine), and stop and express his deep penitence before every chemifet's shop at which doctors attend. Notice might be given oi the ceremonial in the papers. The penitent might be bareheaded, and carry a wax candle in one hand and lead a baa-lamb by the other.—l am, etc., R. H. BAKEWELL, MX)., M.RC.S. Onehunsa. September 27, 1908.

DOCTOBS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —You deserve the thanks of the community for your frank and perspicuous leader of Saturday o_i the above subject. Up to a certain point it is wcP that professional dirty linen should be washed at home; but you are right in judging that the present pass reached by the policy of the section of the B.M.A. (Auckland division) renders it imperative that as a matter of justice to the public and to the profession, the facts should be publicly known. Forcible a_ is your criticism of that pe:icy of boycott, you appear to be unaware that the evil is far more extensive th__n you have stated. The boycott is not limited to the doctors employed by the friendly societies, but extends to any who have at any time accepted such employment, though the connection be entirely severed. In some of the cases you quote the latter aloue were concerned. No member of the Association is at liberty to meet— under penalty of boycott—those who have met friendly society doctors or those who have met those who have met them, or any who has met those who ■have met anyone meeting them. . . . But this is not all. Duly qualified and registered homoeopaths are included in the ostracism, even where the necessities of the case demand the immediate assistance of a surgeon, whatever be the plight of the unfortunate patient. Only the other day two members of the Association of unblemished personal and professional character have been made the objects of proceedings on the part of the executive, and subjected to personal insult from some members for treating a surgical case while a homoeopath administered the anaesthetic. The same chAin of ostracism te in force here as in the case of the friendly societies.

But it is important that the public should know that such an attitude does mot represent the usage or feeling of the profession in general, and is in direct opposition to the rules of the British Medical Association. The latter body is a world-wide institution, animated by high ideals, and which deserves the respect of all lovers of humanity, whose welfare it is its ruling principle to promote. The Auckland Association was c_ce a purely local society, having no connection with the British Medical Association. Only of late years has it been prevailed upon to become affiliated to the imperial society. But the mother institution, being ignorant of local conditions in the colonies, committed the mistake of allow ing its branches and divisions too complete an independence. The Auckland Association has merely changed its name, not its constitution, and made no endeavour whatever to conform to the spirit, to the rulings, to the precedents of the Association. It has thus brought the honoured name of the Association into disgrace, and mado it a by-word with the public of Auckland. tho actions above referred to are of purely local import, «td are definitely repudiated by

the principles of the Br-___T_7T ""^ v sociation. J>«Us_ afeajcaL4* Further, you should kno w L, . i h\\ a pokey does not rei___»nr;i. _ ut «**-. ! A the local «_A*TOSBTf* V of the Association. The ESS"? * division of the B_M.A_.__ I " l ***. by a small .umieTT. dosen-whose narrow a__u___. .___* ' ■ views they impose, by their «_2t setf-a_«_rtiv«n___, W JS and by threafa, *„-£ ' sbeep.sh self-surrender beating, from dread of lc_s of status aS . pseudo-respectability. New ._3__k___F young, inexperienced member? I_f ** tematically fastened upon by thTL!-_ clique, and drilled poisoning their minds with pt.»Ko_ » have been told by members at ,____J'-r-. that they had no'idea ', voting about-they simply did .__*£*. •were told to do. Me 3. - It is only fair that the public sfco-u " ' know that tbe un-Euglfeh _?nd Mortal actions of the Auckland As__d__' ' tion are not representative of thT«n_, ■ duct of the profession and of ft„ H spirit of the British Medical AssceiZ ' ' tion, whose fundamental principle ia that the best interests of the public and. 0 { medical profession are identical, and Whose chief aim is to promote the effi, ciency of the profession in the service cl humanity.—l am, etc, A MEMBER OF THE BRITISH ________ CAL ASSOCIATION.