ORGANISED DOCTORS.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16947, 23 September 1920, Page 6

ORGANISED DOCTORS.

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. (special to "tiie press.") WELLINGTON, September 22. Tiie affairs of the British Medical Association wcro discussed in the House of Representatives this afternoon.. Dr. H. C. Faulke, of Wellington, had petitioned the House, asking:— (1) That provision should be made during the present session for the right of appeal by a medical practitioner to the Supremo Court against the decisions of the British Medical Association, New Zealand branch; and

(2) That legislation should be introduced making illegal the boycotting of a nicdical practitioner _ who was not a member of tho Association, but who was on the medical < roll, by the members of the Association. The A to L Petitions Committee recommended tho first clause of this petition for tho 'favourable consideration or tho Government. . " The chairman of the Committee (Mr Wright) said that Dr. Faulke had been a member of the Association. _ Thero had been somo difference of ' opinion between Dr. Faulke and the Association, and he had been charged _by the executive of the Association with unprofessional conduct. Ho had denied that charge, and eventually was expelled from the Association. After he had been expelled he was ostracised. Other doctors would not work with him except in extreme; cases, where life and death were involved. Tho doctor was asking now that in his case, and similar cases, the medical practitioner who was expelled from the Association should have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. There was no right or appeal at present, owing to the fact that tho British Medical Association was an unregistered body, and therefore eould not be proceeded against at law. If tho Association were registered, aggrieved persons'would bo able to appeal to the Courts. The Committee had been informed that in Britain the right of appeal in such cases existed. The petition, added Mr Wngjit, involved the status of certain doctors who had. been imported from Britain by the Friendly Societies. These doctors were doing the work of th© Societies, and they had been piaced under tho ban by the Medical Association. They would have a right of appeal under tho recommendation of the Committee. The, members of tho Committee had not considered it necessary to deal with the second part of the petition, since a remedy would be provided if tho right of appeal to the Supreme Court existed.

Mr Harris supported tho recommendation of the Committee. It was felt, he said, that the British Medical Association was a close -corporation, which bad not given fair treatment to fully qualified doctors outside tho organisation. The doctors within the Association refused to consult the doctor r who were outside. Mr Bartram said that the position was rather serious from tho point of view of the public. The organised doctors were at "variance with the nonunionists, and the public interest suffered. The difficulty was nn argument in favour of the nationalisation of the medical service. Speaking from a union standpoint, he had to. congratulate the members of the British Medical Association on their exhibition of "class consciousness and union solidarity." The Committee had been told that the doctors • impprted by the Friendly Societies were really "scabbing" on the Medical Union. The evidence put before' the Committee had shown that the British Medical Association was trying to induce these doctors to break their agreements. Dr. Gibto had told the Committee that if contracts were made without _ full knowled ce of the facts, repudiation was iust'fiable. Mr Wright : He scarcely went as far as that. Mr Bartram: I think he did. Mr Fraser said that the Medical Association was a union that had gone further than other unions in the protection of its members. It claimed the right to expel and boycott members, and these members ought to have the same right that other members had to appeal to the Courts, if an injustice had been done. The British Medical Association had made certain definitions of ethical conduct. It had discussed a proposal that a member should be deemed to be fruilty of unethical conduct ir he appeared in a civil Court as a witness "in conjunction with a member of the medical profession whom tho Association considers it unethical to meet professionally." Mr J. S. Dickson declared that in Auckland the organised doctors had threatened to withdraw their cases from maternity homes if doctors outside the British Medical Association were allowed to attend patients in the same homes. The doctors had given an example of tho "one big union."