DOCTORS AND LODGES.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15452, 3 December 1915, Page 9

DOCTORS AND LODGES.

p TO THE EDITOR OF "THE TBESS." j Sif, —111 your sub-leader of Tuesday last, you stated the true facts connected with the above, but I think, in justico to the professional gentlemen of Christchurcli. we should put the case njoro clearly, namely:— For twenty years they have received from tho Friendly .Societies, upon behalf of their members, the modest amount of 15s per year. This includes the member, his wife, and family, however small or large it may be. Need I here remark that these gentlemen are at the beck and call of these individuals at any time, either in tho night or day; very frequently called in for really frivolous cases, and now, when they seek to obtain an advance upon this fee. all kinds ot' innuendoes and charges are made against them. One of your correspondents goes so far as to charge them with taking an undue advantage of the war times, but surely! have they not a right to ask tho Friendly Society for a fair advance, more especially in these limes when tlie cost, of living is so very much advanced. They have great expenses to keep up, both in labour, ami even in the cost of running motor-cars, which now is far iii excess of what iff was in times past. Let the Friendly Society be fairly just to others as well as generous to themselves. I hold no brief for these gentlemen, but my experience* of them has been that they are most kindly disposed, and ever willing to help clients 11 every way, and 1 am sure that thev bear a very marked comparison with their brother medical men in rlio Old Country. And, finally, may I say. sooner than their services should be severed from these societies, may 1 suggest that a compromise should 1>? made, namely: TII3 charge from 15t» to be raised to 21s, because naturally they cannot have tho same number now as if 110 war existed.—Yours, etc., JOHN CHARLES JONES. Christchurcli, December -.

TO TII£ EDITOR Ot" ''XUE riIESS." Sir, —1 read with considerable annoyance your sub-leader in this morning's "Press" championing the causo of the Wellington doctors who you say aro virtually 011 strike against attending Friendly Society patients lor the usual fee of los r,er meml>er. and who are demanding '24s per member. our exceedingly weak piece of special pleading on behalf of these medical men simply demonstrates the unworthiness of tlie. case you are defending. What is the position? Briefly, it is this: The war has created the necessity for a number of medical practitioners in the Dominion to enrol for active service, thus leaving their work hero to bo carried 011 by the doctors who remain. These patriotic stay-at-home doctors then immediately sot about (and unless I am misinformed in many cases have actually done so.) raising their fees. Apparently they are not content with the increased earnings which wider practice alfords and seize on the opportunity to increase their gains in a twofold manner.

Now, Sir, you have denounced as unpatriotic on nlore than one occasion the action of the workers in-the Old Country "who had struck for higher pay during the war, although those workers had the excuse of the greatly inn-eased cost of living to justify their demands. What, attitude would you take, up, one wonders, if organised labour in the Dominion were to demand a (JO per cent, increase in wages on account of the rise in the cost of living, and r» (50 per cent, rise in doctors' fees? No doubt yon would hasten to denounce the movement as unpatriotic, and as a wicked organised attempt to paralyse the industries of the Dominion at a critical time. Vet you attempt to justify the doctors in doing a similar thing without having any excuse savo that of mercenary greed for their action. Where 'docs these medical gentlemen's patriotism como in Y Yon may or may not be aware of the fact, but there are hundreds of employees in the Dominion who, in addition to their own. are helping to do the work lately done by "a icilow-worker who has gone to the irorit, and that without getting any of tho other fellows' pay for it. Is it too much, then, to expect our medical men to exert themselves from motives of patriotism to do the extra work to bo done -without imposing a 60 per cent, increase in fees; and especially so since an increased practice means increased earnings lor them I'—Yours, ctc. J. Kennedy. December 2nd. [Our correspondent's argument is entirely irrelevant, .since ho entirely overlooks the point—surely the vital one—that the inadequacy of the Lodge rates, which are lower than those even in .Britain, is an old grievance, and the doctors' claim for higher rates dates from before the war.—Ed. "The Press."]