The Minister and the Medical Men.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15607, 3 June 1916, Page 8

The Minister and the Medical Men.

We do not quite follow the Minister for Public Health in the reply he gave to Mr Fletcher in the House yesterday, iu reference to the motion which the Wellington Branch of the British Medical Association are said to have under consideration. As our readers are aware there lia3 be«n a difference of opinion between the Wellington "lodge doctors" and the local Friendly Societies in reference to the fees to be paid in respect of each member, the doctors claiming an increase to 24s per annum. According to Mr Fletcher, the Wellington Branch of the Association have under consideration a motion to the effect that it should be regarded as "unethical" for any member of the Association to meet in consultation a medical man who was not a member of the Association. The Minister for Public Health appears to havo denounced such a proposal in the strongest terms and to have threatened that if | it were persisted in he would bring the matter before Cabinet with a view to j drastic action being taken. We do not j know whether such a motion is under consideration or not, but it seems an- |

likely that there would be any refusal to meet another medical man on the ground that he is not a member of the Association. A great many eminent doctors and surgeons, both in England and the Dominions, do not belong to the British Medical Association, but the members of the latter would not dream of refusing on that ground to meet them in consultation. If there is a dispute between members of the Wcli lington Board of the Association and j the lodges because the latter will not !• agree to fees which the former consider j fair and reasonable, and if other doctors come in and offer to do the work for less, there is no doubt that the members of the Association would regard those ''"undercutting" competitors very much as a trade union regards "blacklegs," and we do not see how i the lodge members, most of whom are j unionists, could c-omplain o: this attitude. Public opinion condemns the action of a medical man who refuses j to attend in a case of serious illness |or accident, even when there is no j chance of his being paid, but we do I not see why n doctor is not at liberty I to refuse to meet in consultation an- | other doctor of where conduct he dis- | approves. Mr Russell says the doctors j hare a "monopoly/' and therefore they j are bound not only to attend patients but to meet other practitioners in con- i J sultation whether they wish to do so lor not. It is difficult to son in what j the so-called •'monopoly'-' exists. It is. ! no doubt, an offer.ce for a man falsely to j represent himself as a qualified medical practitioner, but there is nothing to prevent a chemist, a herbalist, or even a person with no pretence to medical skill at all lrom treating diseases for payment. It is true he cannot recover his iocs in a court of law, but iio gcis J over this by insisting on cash, whereas tho qualified man gives credit, and not infrequently never gets paid at all. Suppose, however. Mr Ru-sell persuades the Cabinet to pass some legislation making it compulsory for any registered medicai practitioner to meet any other only qualified doctor in consultation hen called noon, doo> anyone suppose that the consultant, thus forced to give his services unwillingly j s in the frame of mind to ensure the best of his skill and knowledge being placed at tlie disposal of the patient? Mr Kussoif | s a hard working administrator, pof.es.sing the power of initiative, but he makes the mistako sometimes of speaking too much upon tho impulse of tho moment without exactly seeing where his words and actions may lead him. Wo think he has done so on this occasion.