PRINCIPLE OF BILL

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 295, 10 September 1941, Page 8

PRINCIPLE OF BILL

Described As Thoroughly Bad NEWSPAPER COMMENT Extracts from newspaper editorial comment on the Bill follow:— The “Christchurch Pr'ess” —Whatever may be supposed to be the Minister’s intention, if thd doctors do not budge and the Social Security Amendment Bill becomes law, he has not taken power to compel them, and he has taken power to approve their continuing to. practise and to charge fees as they do now. Whether this is a loophole, designed to be used as such, or whether it is merely a device to avoid the naked appearance, of coercion Bill, will sooner or later become clearer; but ills obvious that the Government has not simplified or clarified its own course, or choice of courses. It has brought renewed pressure to bear ou the doctors, it has also renewed for itself the danger of having to choose between retreat, if the doctors do not yield, or insistence, by the indirect means in the Minister’s power. These are deplorable possibilities. If the Government does retreat, it is unlikely to do so without protesting that it has been frustrated by medical conspirators. If it coerces them, or tries to, it will aggravate the present difficulties of the medical profession most dangerously. Either way, the injustice will be heavy, and the prospects of a sane solution of the problem damaged by political agitation and resentments. The mischievousness o£ attempting to force a solution now is apparent. The “Christchurch Star-Sun.”— Many persons in the community will not be much concerned over the vicious principle of socialization, and others might swallow coercion as long as it brought a comprehensive medical service into being, but this Bill is thoroughly bad in principle and is sure to i,e injurious in practice, as the president of the B.M.A. has said. The plan is to give the public a free choice of doctors at fees to be paid out cf the Social Security Fund for every .attendance at the surgery or at the home. In practice this free-for-all principle will simply overwhelm the already overworked home section of doctors, and therein lies its first danger in forcing down the standard of medical practice and service. The tendency must be at least to shorten consultations, but the system might also induce the general practitioner to undertake work be-, yond his limitations. On the other hano if the most conscientious doctor recommended specialist treatment at the first consultation there would be nothing to stop the patient from disregarding the advice and doing the round of doctors in the hope of evading the extra fees that would be payable for the specialist service. But these possibilities only touch the fringe of a subject which has its roots in rhe fact that doctors ought to be induced io lift themselves by research, travel and study to the point where they will earn rhe higher rewards of specialist knowledge. The Bill is bristling with these and other dangers which strike at the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. The “Waikato Times,” Hamilton. — The course mapped out by the Government for. the medical profession in New Zealand emphasizes the extent to which, the programme of socialization has developed. . . . The public of New Zealand, and not least the medical men themselves, heartily agree that an amended form of medical service-that will provide adequate medical care for those who cannot afford to meet the whole cost is eminently desirable. It is the wholesale nature of the State scheme, by which rich as well as poor are to receive the “free” service, under compulsion, to which objection is taken. Here there are two rival schemes, one formulated by a political body on such advice as it had taken and the other by the medical profession, which since the beginning of time has borne the responsibility of caring for the sick and which, it is admitted, has made astonishing progress in the science of treating human casualties. It would be ridiculous to suggest that politics have nothing to do with the Government’s insistence upon the operation of the State scheme. The measure is almost certain to become law; One effect will be to impose a heavy additional strain on the Social Security Fund, which will have to be subsidized more generously from general taxation. Terminological pedantry demands that the common appellation “free” medical service should be discarded.

The “Timaru Herald”.—The first reactions of the medical profession show that the legislation in its present form has aroused the resentment of the doctors. It is natural that they should not wish the status of their profession to be changed to that of a State-con-trolled enterprise while so many of their colleagues are serving abroad with the Second New Zealand Expeditionary Force. These absent ones are entitled to be heard on a question which affects their future so seriously. It has been properly observed by medical critics of the legislation that the Government would not dream of treating any industry or organized labour group in the way it now proposes to treat the medical profession. ... In fairness to the profession as a whole the Government would be doing a gracious act if it decided to leave its free medical practitioner scheme until after the war. • Those who cannot pay for medical service now get it free; that is one of the honorable traditions of the profession. If the Government merely wishes to square its conscience with the people in an election year it could do so by reducing the Social Security tax until it is able to provide all the benefits it promised. The “Nelson Evening Mail.”—The best evidence so far of the Government’s present intention to force a general election this year is provided by the alternative plan for a general practitioner service. Mr. Nordmeyer has taken exception to the word “coercion” as applied to it, but there is no other word which describes the provisions. of the Bill so well. . . . What the profession thinks of the proposals is shown by the storm of protest which has arisen from all parts of the Dominion. As citizens doctors have the same rights as the rest of us, but the Government, in its anxiety to get some kind of arrangement fixed up, is trampling these underfoot. There is considerable truth in Dr. Jamieson’s assertion that the Bill strikes at the liberty of the subject, at the right to use one’s talents without bureaucratic dictation. . . . The Bill may become law because the Government has the voting power to put it on the Statute Book by October 1, but it cannot be a success in its present form. Conscript doctors will never be the best people to minister to the sick and improve the health of the community.