ARE ARMY DOCTORS SLACKERS?

Grey River Argus, 15 January 1941, Page 8

ARE ARMY DOCTORS SLACKERS?

DR. J. P. S JAMIESON', Chairman of the National Health Insurance Committee of the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association, has once more reached the headlines by publicly asserting the futility of the Government’s plans for a socialised medical service. The! doctors won't even look at the scheme, he informs us, until at least after the war and demobilisation. (1 hl s spokesman for the reactionary elements in the medical profession hopes, perhaps that by that time Labour will have been ousted from power, and their place taken by the representatives of that privileged class which is the natural friends and ally of reaction.)

Rut fortunately we have no reason to believe that Di; Jamieson 'speaks fori all, even a majority, of the doctors We are reliably informed, in fact, that a surprisingly large number of medical men view with increasing favour the Government’s social security proposals. Furthermore, despite the official protest of the 8.M.A., the strength of the essential argument for a medical change m the social structure of our medical services remains intact. Everything points to the desirability of eliminating the “profit motive from the medical profession.

It is impracticable to traverse the whole field of socialist medicine pros and cons every time Dr. Jamieson, or one of his friends publicly digs in his toes against the trends of social advancement But it may* be worth while to pursue to a logical conclusion one of the most frequently quoted arguments against the proposed change That contention is this: “Labour’s scheme is bad,’ we are assured, “because if it were applied the standard of medical practice in New Zealand would certainly fall.”

Now the distinctive departure from medical tradition proposed bvl the Social Security measure is the principle of fixed and assured payment, from the public purse, to all doctors; such payment to be independent of the amount of illness or disease treated or cured - H he argument just quoted is valid, therefore, it would appear that the universal application of this principle to the medical profession will somehow or other, cause a falling off in standards of service. In some unexplained manner the possession of an assured and adequate income will induce our medical men to lose tlheir interest in their work, and to substitute for their present careful conscientiousness a slovenly laxness. Or sb we are invited to infer.

Let us see whither this alignment leads us. Up to the present come 250 New Zealand doctors have joined the armed forces to serve in their professional capacities. These army, navy and air force medical officers are paid, of course, fixed salaries from public funds. Their incomes no longer depend upon the amount and nature of personal services which they provide for people capable of paying for them They are expected to attend, without discrimination or favour to the needs of all within their charge. They' have become, that' is’to say. to all' intents and purposes socialist doctors, and any argument against a generalised socialist medical system should apply with full force to the conditions under which they are now servin 9Thus we may expect,! if Dr. Jamieson and his friends are Ught, that those of their professional colleagues who have donned uniform have lost their keenness and efficiency and conscientiousness, and t at io standard of their practice has slumped.

But who dare suggest this? Will anyone assert that the standard of service medicine is lower than that of private practice? Are ary doctors slackers? For our part, we have had some experience of doctors in uniform, and we can unhesitatingly say that at n 0 time have wc encountered the slightest tendency to inefficiency or laxness in the performance of their professional duties. Quite the contrary. We believe the standard of medical practice in the Services to be at least at high as that in civilian and private hfc. And w c don't think Khat even Dr. Jamieson will deny this.

What then becomes of the special plea that we have examined ; Is it not obviously groundless? Perhaps Dr. Jamieson will answer,.