THE DOCTORS’ BILL

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 8, 4 October 1941, Page 8

THE DOCTORS’ BILL

It would not be surprising if the controversies aroused over the Doctors’ Bill, and the circumstances attending its passage through the House of Representatives, have caused some confusion in the public mind. The opposition of the medical profession to. the Government’s proposals for a free universal practitioner service was well founded. The points conceded by the Government bear testimony to its belated recognition of the fact. Broadly speaking, there were two aspects of the question. The first was its practicability. in relation to its effect on the standard of medical practice. In this connexion the prime consideration of the profession was the public welfare. Their experience of general practitioner work and what it involved had convinced them that the scheme in operation would make a heavy extra demand on their time and energies, which would be accentuated in present wartime conditions by the absence of so many of their number on active service overseas. Thus the public was likely to be less well served in the degree of practitioner efficiency possible under the new conditions than it is at present. . . . The Government, animated by greater concern for the political party issues involved than by the larger question of the public welfare, refused to accept this counsel of expert opinion. The second was concerned with the questions of principle raised by the methods proposed for bringing the scheme into operation. These affected the rights of doctors as citizens. For example, the Government sought to reduce the doctors to the status of public servants, denying their right to earn their living in their own way, and that by a process of legislation amounting to actual coercion. They had either, to come into the scheme or abandon their careers as general, practitioners in this country, a proposition presented to them at a time, when about 30 per cent, of the profession was absent on active service overseas. On this question the Government has given way, and restored the right of private practice. The Government also would have refuseo the payment of higher fees arranged between private practitioner and patient than that fixed arbitrarily by legislation,, but has given way on that point. Thus far, however, it has denied the doctors access to the courts of justice for the recovery of the proportion of the fees in excess of that rate. Here again, a vital principle is involved. It is not the recovery of fees that is in question, but the denial of a right enjoyed by all other citizens. ’ • As pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland, in Parliament, of eight questions of principle involved in the objections raised against the proposals, the Government has given way on seven. This is clear testimony that it has been compelled to admit the validity and force of the criticisms, and the. unquestionable evidence of public support for them; that the opposition of the medical profession was justified. So far as the scheme itself is concerned, its practicability remains to be tested, lhe test in present conditions will be severe, but the strain may ultimately be lessened, if the Government, addresses itself to that other aspect of public health upon which the medical profession has laid such emphasis, namely, preventive treatment that will keep people well instead of. running incessantly to the doctors for all kinds of ills, real or imaginary.