INCOMES EARNED BY DOCTORS

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24446, 21 December 1944, Page 6

INCOMES EARNED BY DOCTORS

HOSPITAL AND PRIVATE PRACTICE REMOVAL OF DISPARITY . SUGGESTED The disparity between the incomes earned by many medical practitioners in private practice and those earned by whole-time specialists in the employ of hospital boards was discussed by the North Canterbury Hospital Board at its meeting yesterday. Dr. L. C. L. Averill moved a resolution to be placed as a remit before the hospital boards’ conference, which suggested either some increase in the salaries of the specialists or an increase in their retiring allowances, but the board finally decided to suggest that the limit of £3OO a year on retiring allowances generally should be increased. Dr. Averill’s resolution was that the board should recommend to the hospital boards’ conference that representations be made to the Government indicating the disparity between the incomes, and that increases in salaries or allowances were recommended. The Hon. J. K. Archer, M.L.C., said that the board was adopting rather a dangerous practice by considering such a, resolution. He felt there should not be the disparity in incomes that existed. A great many doctors through social security were getting too much money—far more than they earned in the interests of the community. He knew doctors who believed that a meaical man was not capable of seeing and adequately treating the number of patients represented by, say, £SOOO a year. The Government allowance for an interview was 7s 6d, but most. doctors increased that to 10s, and if that amount was taken for each patient seen, and worked out to something between £SOOO and £BOOO the number of patients was enormous. Retiring Allowances Mr Archer added that he quite agreed that the whole-time specialists employed by the board were more or less adequately paid, but those doctors should be sufficiently devoted to their profession rather than to the idea of making money. They should not desire such colossal salaries as those earned by some private practitioners. Doctors were likely to be very much -spoiled by being able to earn too much. Miss M. McLean said that it was up to the board to pay its officers on the medical staff a good income, and give them adequate security in their old age. Mr R. T. McMillan said that £3OO a year was ridiculously low for a retiring allowance. He thought this applied to other walks of life as well as the medical profession. . Mr C. G. McKellar said that retiring allowances were of more value to a medical man than a high salary. Doctors In Forces . Dr. W. G. Rich said he supported Dr. Averill’s motion, particularly in regard to retiring allowances. He would like Mr Archer to consider that the times were unusual. A large number of doctors had gone into the armed forces, and the general practitioners who were left were carrying the heat and burden of the day. Many worked from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. and many had broken down in health* Others felt that what they earned was no good to them any way, as a large part went back to the Government in taxation. It was not that they wanted to earn the money, but it was forced on them by the calls made on them. Dr. Rich added that with the increase in the number of medical students there would be more doctors coming along, and when those in the services returned, things would even up. In the meantime the board should go in for a long-term policy, and that was why he favoured better retiring allowances.

After the chairman (Mr L. B. Evans) had pointed out that the salaries of the medical staff came before the board from time to time, and were fixed by the board, Dr. Averill agreed to amend his resolution to cover retiring allowances generally.