DOCTORS’ BILL

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 8, 4 October 1941, Page 11

DOCTORS’ BILL

Deputation To The Prime Minister SEQUEL TO PROTEST MEETING Main objections to the Social Security Amendment Bill were summarized as follows by Mr. W. Appleton, who headed a deputation to the Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser, yesterday: (a) Every citizen should be entitled to access to courts of justice, and doctors should be allowed to sue for just claims in similar fashion to other people; (b) rates of remuneration to the medical profession or to any other body of workers should be fixed by an independent tribunal, not by an Act of Parliament, which could be readily altered to suit the vagaries of party politics; (c) no provision was made for the rendering of a specialized service, nor for the extension of preventive medical attention.

The deputation represented the recent citizens’ protest meeting held in the Wellington Town Hall. Mr. Appleton said that while the amendments went some distance in meeting the position, the point was that rt was not so much a matter of finance as one of principle. “The sugarcoating of an additional 50 per cent, as fees to the medical profession does not overcome the difficulties,” he continued. “In its official election manifesto in 1935, the then Opposition said that the Labour Government would introduce a national health insurance scheme. The substitution of a partial State medical service as now proposed, even with the amendments, was never endorsed by the electors, nor has it ever been submitted to them in that form.” Mr. Appleton said it was felt that the very fact that the Government had found it necessary to introduce vital amendments to the Bill showed that the public protests made in various parts of the Dominion had been more than justified. Replying, Mr. Fraser said that the amendments would have been made had there been no meetings of protest. “The sting has come out of the Bill, said Mr. R. H. Nimmo, president of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, who agreed that the matters referred to by Mr. Appleton should be adjusted, Mrs. A. Downs said the womeu would be relieved to know that the doctors would still have the right to private practice, and that the personal connexion between doctor and patient was not to go.

Mr. M. G. C. McCaul, speaking on behalf of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, said that generally they were opposed to any compulsion. People did not value anything that was free, and he thought the Bill would result in a great waste of time on the part of the doctors and the public. Women’s Views.

The views of the Women’s Service Guild were expressed by the president, Mrs. John Henderson, who said that the guild was in favour of a State medical service, but was opposed to it being made a State monopoly. It was urged that the administrative head of such a service should be a layman with provisiou for the right of appeal to an independent tribunal in the event of a conflict of opinion between the executive of the New Zealand branch of the 8.M.A., and the administrative head of the service.

The right of the doctors to have access to the courts for the recovery of fees was supported. It was also recommended that all public hospital and medical services should be a charge on the Social Security Fund to overcome the present double taxation imposed on ratepayers. Other suggestions were that, in order to ensure sjmcialist services, the consultation, and visiting fees provided under the Bill, should be available to specialists; that it should be possible by way of subsidy from the Social Security Fund to widen the scope of the work of the friendly societies.. It was also recommended, that the field of preventive work in regard to the health of the community should be widened.

Speaking as chairman of the protest meeting, Mr. Hislop said that in fairness he wanted to say that the meeting was not a “packed” one. Mr. Nash: It was.very difficult to get on the ’phone that day. Mr. Fraser asked Mr. Hislop to confine himself to reasonable remarks. “1 don’t want to have to express my owu opinion of some of the things that were said at that meeting,” he said.

Mr. Hislop said that the meeting was practically unanimous. The principle involved was that of allowing a group of people to earn their livelihood free. The effect of the Bill, as it then stood, was that if a doctor did not come into the scheme he could not earn his living. That clause had now come out, and one of the great points made by the meeting had been achieved, but only partly achieved. The doctor was denied the right to go to the Court, restoration of that right would do no harm. Mr. Hislop added that an approved commission should be set up to go into the whole question, including the specialist services, which were the ones that cost the money. Prime Minister Replies.

The Prime Minister, in a brief reply, said the Government bad been concerned about the worry that people suffered in trying to pay for medical attention, and it had set out to remoie that worry. He had no quarrel with the medical profession for saying what they thought of the Government's scheme, ami he renewed the, offer he made in the House to appoint a tribunal to fix the amount of fees. “We have to recognize that in a democratic State where coercion is possible it is not generally advisable,” said Mr. Fraser, “and particularly in a time of war we have to work together and find ways of doing so.” Mr. Fraser added that it was gratifying to know that, whatever differences of opinion there might be on details, there was no difference of opinion in regard to the need for a proper medical service for the people of the Dominion.