DOCTORS AND PUBLIC

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 132, 7 June 1939, Page 10

DOCTORS AND PUBLIC

(To the Editor.) Sir, —My experience in a recent illness may be of interest in relation to medical benefits under the Social Security Act. I was attended by various doctors as follows:—(1) General practitioner, who diagnosed the trouble as surgical; (2) surgeon, who performed operation in private hospital; (3) heart specialist, who attended at home following a relapse; (4) second specialist called in because of complications. An X-ray was also required. After several months I eventually made a good recovery, due under God to the skill and attention of the above medical men. By reason of the length of the illness, the fees, which were moderate considering the number of visits and the quality of service rendered, totalled a fairly large sum. I remarked to one of my doctors that had I delayed my illness, Social Security would have met all the charges. He said that was not so, and on inquiry I found he was perfectly right. Social Security provides for the payment of doctor No. 1, the general practitioner, but not for doctors 2, 3 and •', the surgeon and specialists, as set out above. Their fees are still chargeable to the patient, also cost of X-ray.

I further found that the 8.M.A., in opposing the medical provisions of the Act, had proposed alternatives under which by regular contributions, in some cases subsidised or wholly paid' by the Government, a full general practitioner and specialist service would be provided for all. My experience in the illness I have described convinces me that a proposal of this nature has much to recommend it and is worth investigation, and that it should not be brushed aside until it has been fully examined. I am aware that I could have been treated at our very fine public hospital, and that such is provided for under Social Security. But there are the disadvantages of a waiting list at times, limitation in the choice of a doctor, present over-crowd-ing, and the impossibility of the full personal attention which I am convinced in my case turned the scale. Even with the contemplated additions and for many years to come the Wellington Hospital will be inadequate for the treatment of all the sick in the community, and a large number will necessarily continue to be treated in their homes. For such the B.M.A. proposals are much more satisfactory than the service provided under the Act. They could be implemented and administered in conjunction with the pension and sick pay benefits. -To support them may mean the elimination of a cause of much hardship in the days to come. To condemn them offhand is very unwise.—l am, etc., LOOK AHEAD. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I read with interest the letter from "Father of Five," and agree with him that doctors' fees are too high. Our medical men would be surprised if they knew what a worry their accounts are to the honest working man and the middle-class people. There are many men who would like to join a lodge who have been turned down. If their income is small, and there is a family, what serious illnesses arise because a visit to the doctor is postponed. ■ I know of wives whose husbands are in a lodge, who feel as if they are asking for charity when the doctor has to be called in. This is more common in the city than in the country towns, because in the latter the majority of patients are lodge, and the country practitioner soon knows his people. Even there I have had the humiliating experience of having to ring for the doctor at the weekend and being treated with frigid politeness because it necessitated a visit after an afternoon of golf.

A friend of mine was told by the only doctor in a small town that if her husband had to pay for all his visits

he would not be sent for so often. My friend offered to pay a fee if the patient (lodge, of course) did not need urgent attention, and the doctor came grudgingly. He admitted the case was serious, and then did everything in his power to relieve the sufferer.

I myself have been to many doctors and specialists, and with two exceptions have received kindness and courtesy, but even in the depression my specialist never lowered his fees. Perhaps if I had told him what a struggle I was having he would have reduced his fee, but I was taught in my youth to owe no man anything.

I am not a supporter of the Labour Government, but I have been interested in the Social Security scheme. Last month I paid double in tax I paid last year, and can receive no benefits so far. I think the Government has rushed things, as usual, and I am sorry the B.M.A. has been antagonised. I hope some arrangement will be made so that the majority of honest middleclass people will receive some help without humiliation.—l am, etc., ONE GUINEA, THANK YOU.