Health Service For Britain

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24632, 31 July 1945, Page 4

Health Service For Britain

The news that delegates to the British Medical Association’s conference enthusiastically greeted the defeat of Sir William Beveridge in the General Election serves as a reminder that a national health service has yet to be instituted. It is nearly three years since the Beveridge Report was issued, and 18 months since the Coalition Government issued its proposals. Progre.-s has obviously been slow. Indeed, by the beginning of last May it had produced no more than alternative proposals, from the Minister of I Health, to those of the While Paper of February, 1944. The new pro- ' posals were not officially made

public. According to “The Times”, hotvever, .they dealt solely with the administrative structure of the health service; and they were devised to meet the main objections raised by the medical profession. The “Economist” judged them a “ fairly satisfactory compromise : and both it and “ The Times ” hoped that the B.M.A. would show itself as willing as the Minister to meet the other side half-way. But agreement on the administrative machinery would not by itself, as both newspapers commented, settle the fundamental issue. Nearly three years ago the B.M.A. resolved that a national health service, of whatever character, should be provided for the whole coitimunity. This basic principle was endorsed by .60 per cent, of all doctors, and by 73 per cent, of Service doctors, who replied to the B.M.A.’s questionary. Yet, at its last annual meeting eight months ago, the B.M.A. would not commit itself to the “ 100 per cent, “principle”. As >the “Manchester “ Guardian ” summed up the debate: “ Will they, won’t they, join the “dance? They do not care to say”. It seems that the B.MA. still does not care to say. The Minister’s proposals for a changed administrative structure were to have been submitted to a special representative meeting of the B.M.A. early in May. That meeting, too, was “ appar- “ ently ” to be asked, said “ The “ Times ”, to accept the 100 per cent, principle. The cables have said nothing of the outcome; and another conference of the B.M.A. was sitting when the General Election results were announced. If this means that the argument has still to be resolved —and it is difficult to come to any other conclusion —the B.M.A.’s jubilation over Sir William Beveridge’s defeat must be thought premature. Last December the “ Manchester Guardian ” declared that the B.M.A. had lost “ much ” of the public goodwill. More recently, “ The Times ” spoke of the need for “ urgent ” decision, and suggested that the public would be in no mood to forgive those who let opportunities slip. But even if the opportunity had been taken in May, the B.M.A. might well find the new Government less accommodating than the last promised to be. Certainly, the B.M.A. will find the wayhard if there are many in Parliament to share Dr. Edith Summerskill’s view of the alternative proposals as “a complete capitulation “to the medical old corps, a negation of the White Paper, and an “ ugly confidence trick