MATERNITY BENEFITS

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 May 1939, Page 5

MATERNITY BENEFITS

BOYCOTT SUGGESTION AN EMPHATIC PROTEST ( PER PRICKS ASSOCIATION. | WELLINGTON, May 13. An emphatic protest against the action of the Minister for Health (Mr. Eraser) in raising the question of a ppssifrle boycott by the profession of those doctors serving under the maternity benefit regulations was made by Dr. J. P. S. Jamieson, chairman of the National Health Insurance Committee of the New Zealand branch of

the British Medical Association. “I cannot,” said Dr. Jamieson, “allow such a serious allegation to pass without immediately repudiating it on 1 behalf of the whole of the medical profession throughout New Zealand and entering an emphatic protest against the action of the Minister in giving expression to it. The Minister

states: T have been informed tha; some practitioners fear that if the? sign a contract in accordance with their own wishes, opinions, and con sciences, they run the risk of profes sional injury through deliberate non co-operation on the part of their fel low practitioners.’ “So ill-founded is this fear in the Minister’s own belief that he hastens to add: ‘From my knowledge of the medical profession, 1 have no hesitation in stating my belief that neither the official organisation nor any responsible section of the profession would stoop to such methods.’ As the Minister himself has no belief in the allegation, then surely he had

no right to put it forward. “Yet he goes on to suggest methods for dealing with what he knows to be an unthinkable and wholly imaginary situation. ‘lf, as is most unlikely,’ says Mr. Fraser, ‘any irresponsible section or individual would be so misguided as to attempt any such retaliatory methods, then, as soon as the attention of the Government is drawn to the fact, steps would immediately be taken to combat such reprehensible action and the full protection of the State would be extended to practitioners against whom such methods were used. The boycott weapon ,is dangerous at all times, and in all circumstances would earn the reprobation of all decent people if applied in any form or under any pretext where the .lives of mothers and babies are involved, and possibly in danger.’ “How can this latter statement,” commented Dr. Jamieson, “be reconciled with the Minister’s previous expression of his disbelief, based as it is on his own intimate knowledge of the profession? In ordinary justice, the serious nature of the charge demands further particulars of the source and character of the Minister’s information,” Dr. Jamieson concluded. “On behalf of the whole profession I again repudiate the suggestion, which implies unworthy motives to my colleagues, and have no hesitation in saying that the Minister’s state-, ihent will be deeply resented by the profession and the public alike. I will have something further to say to-mor-. row on behalf of the association regarding the rest of the Minister’s statement.”

“BADLY ADVISED”

ONUS ON GOVERNMENT

WELLINGTON, May 14

“The impasse that has. been arrived at in regard to the provision of maternity services under the Social Security Act is the creation of the Government, and .is its responsibility,” said Dr. J. P. S. Jamieson, commenting .further on the statement issued by the Minister for Health (Mr. Fraser) on Saturday. “It is common sense that when a Government in a democratic country desires to introduce any radical change which it cannot operate itself, it must first be assured of the consent of the other persons concerned, and of their willingness to co-operate,” said Dr. Jamieson. “The administrative function, for the public good, should be to smooth out difficulties rather than intensify them. The wisdom of this course applies with even .greater force when the matter at issue is one of general public health.” Dr. Jamieson reiterated his statement that the Government had rejected the export advice of the medical profession, and said it was attempting to go ahead with its own scheme which, the British Medical Association had warned it, would prove unacceptable and inapplicable. “How is one to account for this?” he asked. “The truth is that the Government has been completely misled by its ownadvisers, especially as to what Avould be the attitude of the medical profession when the matter came to a definite issue. The response to the offer of contracts for maternity service proves this 'beyond dispute. “The sooner the Government recog-' nises that its scheme cannot be put into effective operation and accepts the practical advice of the association, the sooner will it be able to make progress with a sound scheme in which it will -receive the fullest cooperation of the whole metlical profession. Actually, through the Government being badly advised, three valuable years have been wasted, for which the medical profession throughout New Zealand cannot with any sense and justice be held to blame. “The Minister is in error when lie says the absence of the service is entirely due to those ivho can give service refusing to do so. The published lists reveal the inefficiency of the service about to be put into operation. This is due to the Government’s adherence to its own preconceived ideas. Willing co-operation of the whole profession concerned with maternity work can be secured immediately if the Minister will give effect to the method proposed by the association, whereby the maternity benefit would be operated as a cash benefit payable to the patient. Such a method would not only put the whole profession at the service of mothers, but. would enable mothers, wherever situated, to make their arrangements without the intervention of any third party. This would also relieve the department of the high costs for the administration of this benefit.

“Obviously co-operation between the Government and the profession, on which the success of any scheme depends, and which ali desire, must be two-sided. The profession offered Its co-operation, but the Government, rejected it, and went its own way. Hence the onus for the present position is on the Government. The profession is morally, and legally by the Government’s own act, entitled to decline

offers of service,'and I submit that because its members have exercised this right they cannot be held to be ob-

structionist, even by the Government.

“It is unwise in the introduction of a scheme such as this to take a course which tends to set the people against the doctors, the doctors against, themselves, and all against, the Minister’s own department. I therefore urge the Minister not to reject the advice .and sincere offer of co-operation which the profession tenders.”