WRONG METHOD

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 98, 28 April 1938, Page 20

WRONG METHOD

HEALTH PUN.

DOCTORS' VIEW.

HELP NOT PROMISED.

TREATMENT OF DISEASE

«NO GREAT ADVANTAGE."

(By Tolcgrnph.—rrpss Association.)

WELLINGTON, Wednesday

A declaration that it could not promise the willing support and co-operation which the Government would desire should it determine on putting- its present health proposals into operation, was made in a statement submitted by the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association to the special Parliamentary committee which is

investigating the scheme. "To sum np," says the -statement, "we see in the projected scheme a mistaken method of approach to the problem of raising the standard of health of the community; no appreciable advantage in the treatment of disease over what we possess at present; unnecessary interference with and discouragement of individual initiative and enterprise; State domination over people's freedom and professional liberty; and deterioration of the standard of medical work."'

The association's statement .was submitted by. Dr. J. P. S. Jamieson, president of the branch and chairman of its National Health Insurance Committee. Associated: with him were Mr. T. D. M. Stout, surgeon, Dr. P. P„, Lynch, pathologist, Dr. S. L. Ludbrook, physician, and Dr. W. P. P. Gordon and Dr. L. J. Hunter, general practitioners.

" Restriction Undesirable." Dr. Jamieson stated that the association desired that so far as practicable obstacles to obtaining the necessary service should be removed wherever they existed in order that everyone should have access to complete and necessary medical attention. It considered, however, that to maintain that end it was neither necessary nor desirable .to restrict the freedom of people to seek their medical attention as and where they preferred, nor was it desirable that individual responsibility in this matter should be lessened.or abolished.

"In any steps we take," the statement continued, "we should keep our feet on the firm ground of experience, direct attention first to the needs which are greater, and employ methods which are related to practical requirements.

' All were agreed that the promotion of health was a greater object than the treatment of sickness in that prevention was better than cure. They did not under-estimate the'importance of curative medicine, but national health insurance, which was really a system of indemnification for sickness, did not, especially in the proposals put forward by the Government, materially advance the object of the promotion of health. There were certain, conditions in relation to environment, to conditions at work, to domestic help, to nutrition of the young, to preventive medicine, and to research which the medical profession knew to be unsatisfactory. Continuous and studied attention to those conditions would do far more for the people than the introduction of any costly scheme of health insurance, and the provision of a universal general practitioner service would do nothing towards remedying these deficiencies. Further there was a pressing need for reform by the proper co-ordination of all health services in the community. This was specially apparent in hospital administration, the reform of which was long overdue, and would remedy, with very little extra coat to the ratepayers, many of the defects in the present system.

After making a comparison of conditions in Germany, where a health insurance system had been instituted, with those in New Zealand, the statement added that the Prime Minister's proposals provided little for the people which was not available to them at present, and had omitted the real impediments to efficient treatment. They suggested that, the Government was more concerned with changing ' the present system than with improving the medical service of the people.

Dealing with the origins of the proposals announced by the Prime Minister, the statement says: "It was first brought to the direct notice of the profession through representations made to the association by Dr. D. G. McMillan, M.P., after his appointment as chairman of the investigation committee. This committee was not, iii the opinion of the profession, a body qualified for the task allotted to it."

State Control of Services. " With unflagging energy and enthusiasm Dr. McMillan canvassed the majority of the medical practitioners, pressing the advantages of the contemplated system. His representations left no doubt in the minds of the profession that the ultimate object was State control of the entire medical services, rather than provision for the actual medical needs of the people. There can be no doubt that a great majority of the profession were opposed to the proposals. and during the months that we have been studying the problem this opposition has strengthened.. Our opposition is based on the Conviction that such a service would not only fail to satisfy the,real, health needs, -but would lead to tie« deterioration' 'of- the standard of medical practice."