B.M.A. Accused Of Suppression

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30856, 15 September 1965, Page 1

B.M.A. Accused Of Suppression

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, September 14.

The British Medical Association had gone to “ludicrous and unnecessary lengths to avoid even the slightest suspicion of advertising,” said an article in the bulletin of the New Zealand Medical Association.

The article said the B.M.A. was sacrificing the greater ethical duty, which was to guide and enlighten the public on all medical matters.

“The B.M.A. maintained . that the avoidance of personal publicity was the basis of the philosophy of professional ethics and that almost e’ ery rule stemmed from this.

“Such a completely lopsided and historically incorrect view of medical ethics tied in with the undue emphasis on secrecy, anonymity, concealment of facts and suppression of opinions which had been a characteristic of the New Zealand medical scene for the last generation.” said the bulletin. The bulletin said this attitude was completely alien to' the mainsteam of medical tradition. It had arisen, not from a desire to preserve the ethics of the profession, but from a desire to hide their own ethical misdeeds behind a curtain of silence, the bulletin said. The bulletin said that fori centuries the medical profes-l sion had held that doctorsi should not have any financial I interest in sale of drugs. One; could easily see why this rule! was at the heart of medical i service. “The 8.M.A.. however, had seen fit to declare there was nothing wrong with the fact that its organisation was I swarming with shareholders I of drug firms; nor had a word of condemnation been heard against those members of the B.M.A. who were actually directors of drug firms,” said the article. Review Of Rules The council of the New Zealand branch of the B.M.A. has j instructed its ethics committee to review the association’s rules “and possibly revise some of them.” This action was taken after the council had discussed a remit from Dr. W. J. Pryor, of Christchurch, who urged

liberalisation of restrictions on publicity. Dr. Pryor said in a letter published in the B.M.A.’s fortnightly “News and Views.”: “My remit suggests that our

rul “ should be liberalised to conform with modern j(j eas o f medical practice. It is time we reviewed the sections on publicity, with a view to making them less restricfive.”