SOCIAL SECURITY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 221, 26 September 1938, Page 9

SOCIAL SECURITY.

THE HEALTH ASPECT. ATTITUDE OF THE B.M.A. "POOR STILL REMAIN POOR." (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON", this day. In view of statements now being inuilo on the hustings regarding the attitude of the medical profession to the general practitioner service proposed under the Government's Social Security Act and the tendency ti> mislead the public, the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association issued a statement to-day clarifying the issue. "The New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association," states the association, "has been anxious for years paet to provide a scheme which would result in a substantial improvement in the general health of the people, and has offered repeatedly to co-operate with the* Government in bringing this about. Notwithstanding that it is a strictly professional and non-political body, that it represents 98 per cent of the medical profession practising in Xew Zealand and is the only body competent to advise the Government on the subject, and further that all its decisions on the subject have been unanimous—notwithstanding all these important factors, the Government has turned a deaf ear to the united representations of the association and has preferred instead to act on the independent advice of a junior medical practitioner, who is a member of the Government party. Deliberately Flouted. "Although it is the only body which ean give effect to the Government's proposals, and it was more politic in any ease to seek ite co-operation, the association was even denied the courtesy of seeing a copy of the bill before it was presented to Parliament, and did. not in fact, actually receive a copy until three hours after it had become public property. "The association knows of no case in which any professional, commercial or industrial body has been so deliberately flouted, and is etill at a lose to understand why it should have been treated so, especially when it was so sincerely desirous of co-operating with the Government in achieving a scheme that would be really worth while and when the matter at issue was such a vital one ae the general health and well-being of the inen, women and children of this country. "The association regrets that it cannot see its way to co-operate in carrying out the Government's proposal for a general practitioner service because it conscientiously believes that the propoeal as enacted can only result in the lowering of the standard of medical practice in New Zealand. Believing this, it would be wrong, obviously, for the association to assent to such a scheme, however well intentioned it might be. The position is unfortunate, hut for this the association cannot be held to blame. "The association believes that in ite approach to the problem the Government is starting out on altogether wrong lines. It ignores the principle that prevention Is better than cure, and that far more can be done for the improvement of the general health of the people and their consequent well-being and happiness by the improvement of existing housing and sanitary conditions, the elimination of known causes of disease and unfitness, the investigation of the unknown causes of these, and co-operation between the branches of preventive and curative medicine. . Preventative Trend Suggested. "Curative medicine in this country is already singularly well provided for, and the association urges that a strongly preventive trend ■ should be given to any such legislation ae is proposed. The " Government's scheme will not raise the standard of health. "The B.M.A. scheme which was turned down by the Government is based on the desire to ensure that the poorest person receives the same treatment as the richest person by providing them with, or assisting them to obtain, the things that are difficult to get. In other words, it plans a complete service for the limited section of the population which is unable to provide it for itself from ite own resources. The Government's scheme, on the other hand, is to ensure that the richest person shall receive treatment no different from that obtainable by the poorest person, but shall pay a great deal more for it. In other words, it plans a partial service for all, irrespective of whether that service can be provided from people's own resource* or not. The only reasons advanced on behalf of the Government for rejecting the limited B.M.A. scheme are that it is 'a poor law system,' 'a pauperisation proposal,' and 'introduces discrimination.' The reply to this is that under the Government's proposals the poor still remain poor. When the term 'pauperisation' is introduced it is not the B.M.A. which is responsible for the condition. Yet under the Government's proposal, while tile poor still remain poor, they will not receive the specialist services and treatment which the B.M.A. proposed they should receive, and there will be no improvement in the general health of the people. Evolutionary Methods Urged. "The association submits that the Government would have been better advised to have adopted the association's scheme, which is limted, and, without upsetting or endangering present efficiency, meets the only need that requires to be met, leaving it for improvements to be made in the future ae they are found to be necessary. The association maintains that improvement in the health services of the community should be of an evolutionary character, rather than that untried methods of unpredictable effect should be hastily introduced ae is being done in the present instance."