The Auckland Star WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, The Echo and The Sun. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1935. DOCTORS AND THE POOR.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 47, 25 February 1935, Page 6

The Auckland Star WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, The Echo and The Sun.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1935. DOCTORS AND THE POOR.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

The clanger of pronouncing judgment without hearing both sides of a case is illustrated by the history of the allegation made against an Auckland doctor in respect to the treatment of a relief worker. Mr. Coates was informed by a deputation that a number of doctors had been asked to attend a sick relief worker at night, that they refused, and that the doctor who eventually answered the. call declined to attend to the case until he had received his fee, which was paid by one of the relief organisations. The local division of the British Medical Association was asked to inquire into the charges, and it informed the body from which the request came that the treatment 'of the indigent sick was a matter for the Hospital Board, but that it was "more than willing" to co-operate in any scheme for the organised relief of sickness among the unemployed. Whether it made inquiries into the allegation against doctors mentioned by the deputation does not seem to have been stated, but two interesting bits of evidence have been adduced. The patient had visited the Board's dispensary the day before the alleged incidents, and had been advised to enter the hospital, which he did not do. To-day the doctor who ultimately attended this case at night states in our correspondence columns that he did not ask for a fee until after he had seen the patient, that the fee was half his usual charge for night visits, and that he did not know the patient was a relief worker. He also states —what must be the experience of other doctors —that he attends many cases for nothing. It is due to the deputation that waited on Mr. Coates to say that it expressed sympathy for the doctors, recognising their right to payment for services, but it may be suggested that before allegations are made against doctors a little more trouble be taken to ascertain all the facts. Good, however, will come out of the case, for it has drawn attention sharply to the medical needs of the unemployed. If a relief worker can afford to pay a fee, it is only a very small one. The willingness of the doctors, expressed through their organisation, to co-operate in organised relief of sickness is in accordance with the traditions of the profession. The Hospital Board is ready to help. The skilled attention and the willingness to supply it are there; what is needed is better organisation for contact between doctors and the victims of circumstances.