Opposition Attack On Medical Investigation

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30543, 11 September 1964, Page 12

Opposition Attack On Medical Investigation

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, September 10. Opposition criticism of the working of investigation committees set up under the Medical Practitioners’ Act, and suggestions that the proceedings should be more formalised and brought into line with legal forms, enlivened the second reading debate on the Medical Practitioners’ Amendment Bill in Parliament tonight.

Moving the second reading of the bill, the Minister of Health (Mr McKay) said it was a small measure of six clauses clearing up anomalies and establishing an improved procedure for the registration of doctors.

Miss M. B. Howard (Opp., Sydenham) said she had always thought the existing legislation gave the New Zealand authorities the right to impose conditions on doctors who came from other countries and wished to practise in New Zealand. “I know that after the war, when doctors were very short, German doctors who came here had to go to Dunedin and spend some time at the university before being granted a certificate to practise,” she said. “If American or other authorities impose conditions before our doctors can practise in their countries, then we should likewise, so that an agreement can be worked out.” Amendment Wanted Mr A. J. Faulkner (Opp., Roskill) said he would like to ask for an amendment of procedures adopted by investigation committees under the Medical Practitioners’ Act. It was laid down, he said, that any investigation committee might regulate its procedures as it thought fit. He cited the case of an Auckland doctor who was alleged to have had too many patients. The Health Department did not make a charge, but the doctor was called before a committee. “In effect, he was exonerated, but the method adopted by the committee seemed to be entirely wrong—to be brought up before a committee with no formal complaint laid,” said Mr Faulkner. “I was surprised to learn during the hearing that taere were no rules; the committee made its own.” Mr Moohan (Opp., Petone) said a doctor had been taken before the disciplinary committee for attending too many patients “1 come from an area with

12,000 people to one doctor— Wainuiomata. “If nothing is done the minister will have to get another doctor to look after the doctor. How can he look after 12,000 people?” Mr G. F. Sim (Govt., Piako) said that if Mr Moohan thought Wainuiomata was ah isolated case “1 feel sorry for him for being so out of touch with the country.” Did Mr Moohan want medical practitioners to be directed where they went? asked Mr Sim. Mr Mason (Opp., New Lynn) said the bill was restrictive because it would hold up overseas doctors, with qualifications equivalent to New Zealand doctors, who wished to practise in New Zealand. It appeared that it was intended to use this as a bargaining point, said Mr Mason. Mrs E. Tombleson (Govt., Gisborne) said the qualifications of an overseas doctor might be equivalent to those of a New Zealand doctor, but his understanding of English might, not be. This bill would safeguard the New Zealand public from quacks coming to the country from overseas. The Minister of Health (Mr McKay) said the bill was quite straightforward. Section three was designed to help reciprocity with other countries, and he hoped it would encourage overseas doctors to come to New Zealand. It was not designed to discourage overseas doctors as one Opposition speaker had suggested. Replying to Mr Faulkner, Mr McKay said that in the case referred to, the defendant had been given six weeks’ notice of the case, which was ample. The defendant had. been represented by counsel, who had initiated correspondence at least a month before the case began, said Mr McKay. The defendant and his counsel had been given every opportunity to cross-examine and to bring evidence before the disciplinary committee. Extensive notes had been taken by a member of the committee and a report made which was subsequently adopted by the medical practitioners’ disciplinary committee.

The defendant had lodged an appeal with the New Zealand Medical Council but had withdrawn it before the appeal was heard. The defendant had had ample opportunity to appeal, said Mr McKay, and he could have appealed to the Supreme Court if his appeal to the medical council had failed. “Done Everything” On the question of doctors for Wainuiomata, Mr McKay said he had done everything he could to encourage doctors to take up practice in the area. He had asked the secretary of the British Medical Association to notify medical practitioners of the opportunities there, and had also appealed to the secretary personally. He had approached individual doctors, said Mr McKay, and as a result of this he believed one had settled there in the last few days to take up practice. The bill was given a second reading.