HEALTH AND DOCTORS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 120, 24 May 1939, Page 10

HEALTH AND DOCTORS

IS CHANGE CALLED FOR?

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I agree that it is the duty of Governments to examine important national activities from time to time with a view to amendment or material change if such is found necessary in the public interest. In view of the conflict between the Government and the doctors and the resolutions passed by industrial organisations or their official spokesmen, I decided to examine the position for myself. During a long life in New Zealand, I have found medical men most zealous in ''the performance- of duty, at all hours, often riding long distances over rough, muddy tracks with sometimes little prospect of financial reward, in order that they might save life or relieve pain. Also, I have known them at great expense return to their original seat of learning for further instruction in modern medical practice in order to maintain their efficiency. I say to myself: "Surely these men have not fallen down on their jobs! Or have they?" To answer this query I examine the Official Year Book, 1939. At page 119 these words meet me: "New Zealand has the lowest rate of infant mortality in the world." For each 1000 births New Zealand has only 32 deaths. Australia comes next with 41, the United States 58, England and Wales 59, Germany 68, Scotland 80, and many coun- | tries have higher rates. No grounds for condemnation of New Zealand there. At page 131 I am informed that tuber- { culosis • has been steadily reduced in New Zealand from 10.1 per 10,000 fifty years ago to 4.2 today, second only to South Africa (4.0), which has the lowest rate in the world. England and Wales have 7.7, France has 13.6, and other countries have as high as 25.0. Well done, ,New Zealand! Then, finally, I turn to page 111, giving the death-rates of various countries, and lam faced with these words: "New Zealand has the lowest deathrate in the world; average per 1000, New Zealand 8.5, England and Wales 12.1, France 15.4, Egy*pt 27.5." Now. Sir, this fine record has been maintained for years, and the medical profession is still working night and day to maintain it. Yet some, shall I say, foolish, people refer to the doctors as strikers! s The Government of New Zealand, the same gentlemen who have tried their "prentice" hands on^ finance, with such disastrous results, 'now set out to remodel a service which is admittedly not the worst but the best in the world. ■• $ Having failed in finance, what will they do with medicine?—l am, etc., OLD LIBERAL. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Hats off to the B.M.A. for its unwavering stand against the coercion 'of the Government. The Government has at last come up against a stumbling block which it cannot take in its stride! I have been reading recently in your paper of the different workers' unions passing resolutions against the B.M.A. and stating' that they will back the Government in whatever action it takes regarding the matter, but do these members of unions stop to think that if they came out on strike and the Government decided to fill their places with foreign labour —wouldn't they create a disturbance? I think so. Do they ever pause to think how very hard a doctor works to earn his fee and how very often he reduces his general fees to suit the financial position of his patient—very often not accepting any fees whatsoever? In any case he generally has to wait a long time for his money, for it is surprising the number of folks who sqem to think that the doctor is the last one who should receive payment. To my mind it is all wrong that the doctors should receive just whatever the Government decides to pay. Has the Government taken into consideration that the length of time to be spent over each confinement varies greatly, and often the doctor must lose quite a great amount in fees if he has many lengthy confinements. Take my own case, for instance. My doctor came to the nursing home several times {during the day, and then later in the evening he came and stayed there until the early hours of the next day, when my infant was born. Later in the day he came back again, smiling and cheery as though he had never had a tiring day and sleepless night. During all that time he put in on my case he probably lost money over .new cases he could have taken, and yet he^only charged me his usual confinement fee. This same doctor, who is prominently known" as a very clever surgeon and can command high fees "for his services performed an operation on me and attended me as regularly as he did those patients who could afford to pay the highest fees, and yet he reduced his fees to me because he knew my financial position. Because' of his sympathetic kindness and courteous attention, this doctor has en-, deared himself so much to us that we could never;employ any other doctor, and I believe that there are other doctors who act in a*-similar way to ours, and whose patients, like myself, would always seek the same^ doctor for that reason, evert though his fees were double what they are. And yet the Government is trying to interfere with their humanitarian work. The Government has been told plainly enough that the doctors do not wish to come into its social security scheme, so why not modify the idea and issue a voucher for each mother to hand to her doctor in full or part payment of his fees—he could then get the vouche.r redeemed by the Government. Everyone would be satisfied, and therewould be no question of the mother retaining the voucher, as she might be tempted to do if a cash payment was made to her.-Um,^