EMPHATIC DENIAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 207, 2 September 1938, Page 7

EMPHATIC DENIAL.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL. ENGLISH EXPERT'S VIEWS. ATTITUDE EXPLAINED. i (By Telegraph.—Own "Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, this day. An emphatic denial or the attitude attributed to Sir Henry Brackenbury by Government advocator in support of the Social Security Bill wa«s made to-day by Dr. J. P. S. Jamleson, president of the Xew Zealand branch of the British Medical Association. He also took Dr. D. G. McMillan to taek for alleged misrepresentation. "Persistent euorts,*' s«id Dr. Jamieeon, "have been made to represent that Sir Henry Brackenbury, the British authority who visited Xew Zealand la?t September to advise the association here, wa«s really iu fax our of jit-t such a system a 0 the Government propose to introduce. Thin is entirely contrary to fact and this denial cannot be too strongly emphasised. Sir Henry believed that the British syi-tem had been of benefit to the people for whom it was devised. He also held that inclusion of dependents as well as insured employees themselves, and provision of specialist services for all those, were to be desired in Britain. But, when asked whether he thought the British panel system should be applied to the whole population. he replied most emphatically in the negative, and thk the Xew Zealand Government well knows.

Strongest Opposition. "At a meeting of the Xew Zealand . branch of the British Medical Associa- , tion this specific question was put to . Sir Henry Brackenbury: 'In event of a bill for national health insurance on a universal general practitioner scheme prathe association resist»' Sir Henrv's ■ reply was: The strongest opposition > should be given to any scheme of a uni- , versa 1 character.' On his return to England, Sir Henry furnished a report to the British Medical Association in which he urged the parent body to render every possible assistance to the Xew Zealand branch in resisting the universal general practioner scheme proposed by the New Zealand Government. _ "As reasons for his advice given in Xew Zealand Sir Henry said that such a scheme was unnecessary. It would be vastly more expensive, without anv advantagc, than the limited scheme pr«»j posed by the Xew Zealand branch of the J British Medical Association. It was much more desirable to make complete provision of medical and allied attention for those for whom it was necessary than to make partial provision to include the whole community, all of whom did not require State help. A scheme which must necessarily involve the existing traditions, methods and interests of many classes of persons, as well as costly administrative arrangements of great complexity, should be introduced gradually in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary fashion. A universal scheme would really amount to socialisation of the whole modioli profession. That such a- radical experiment should be made on the medical profession, one section of th' communitv. was like 'trying it first on the dog.' Socialisation of the profession was onlv justified if a completely socialised state desired by an overwhelming majority of the people of the country. Panel Practice Inferior. "Those/' said Dr. Jamieson, "were the views expressed in Wellington by Sir Henry Brackenbury. They were stated by Sir Henry to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health, and the Government knows them full well, though it tries to shelter behind his name. All medical men who have liad experience of panel work in Britain and general practice in Xew Zealand agree that panel practice is greatly inferior in its service to patients to practice as ordinarily carried out in Xew Zealand. "Turning to another point." said Dr. Jamieson, "in a Press report from X«*w Plymouth, dated August 26, it is stated. 'Dr. McMillan quoted from a pamphlet written by Dr. Jamieson a year upo in which he said that if a universal :x-liciiie was introduced doctors would have no option but to work it.' I flatlv deny ever writing as stated. The truth is that in the pamphlet referred to (which was for members of the association only, though Dr. McMillan does not hesitate to use it in public), in setting out various effects which would follow if the profession accepted Dr. McMillan s proposals, I made the following statement:—'Such a scheme would, of necessity, in its working seriously restrict the freedom of practice which now exists to the benefit of all. Theoretically there would be no compulsion to undertake service, but actually, bcin<j a universal system, every practitioner who had no other means of livelihood would have to do so." "This warning of the effect on the public and the profession in accepting the proposals is utterly different from the interpretation into which Dr. McMillan attempts to twist it. Such obliquity of presentation is quite on a par with the attempt made bv Dr. McMillan to show that there is a similarity between National Health Insurance as it exists in England to-dav and the socialisation of the profession in Xew Zealand as proposed by the present Government. SQemes Entirely Different. "It should be well known to anv responsible politician, and is well known to Dr. McMillan that there is cnlv one thing in common in the two schemes, namely, the limitation of medical service to general practitioner service. !t is just this very restrict ion t"aat is held to be so deleterious in the- English scheme, and that has been copied in the Xew Zealand scheme. In every other particular the schemes are vntirelv different. The English schema is limited to employed persons, iuMudin? manual workers (other than farm workers) and other employed persons with an income of less than £250 a year. The English scheme is based on insurance with payments by the insured person and the employer with a relatively small contribution by the State to defrav idministration expenses. The English sehe.nhas no hospital benefit. The English scheme was introduced by Mr. Lloyd George and was \erv markedly modified in all its cardinal features to satisfy the irresU t ;h)« criticism and objections of the medical profession to which Mr. Llovd tic.r-e had the good sense to pay some attention. The Xew Zealand scheme livss been introduced by Mr. Savage on the adxice of Dr. McMillan, a junior nx-li-.vl practitioner with less than ten experience, and has not been nullified in one essential particular in ~j..tor" the irrefutable criticism and obj'v'ion of the medical profession in N~c-u- Zealand. The British Medical A-soHat io.i in Euglami lias recoil: m'ed th? improvement of the Englis., service alfiiiithe same lines as those p"v.j>osed by ;?>•* Xew Zealand branch in the scheme tie branch submitted to tht ~o» ernmeiii."*