A DOCTORS' BOYCOTT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8754, 19 December 1908, Page 2

A DOCTORS' BOYCOTT.

SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS,

The Auckland Star publishes a number of cases in which it is alleged the boycott has been employed. in * Auckland in connection with the dispute between the British Medical Association arid a number of Auckland doctors. The following instances arc given of the way the differentiation is said to operate: — THE CASE OF A fiIRL. (I.)— Dr. G. (boycotted), attending a girl for disease of the ear, sends her to the public hospital for operation. The o-irl was a domestic servant, -but on ac- • count of the condition of her ear. could not get a place, and as she was poor and aii orphan, and - her home was m the country, .she was unable to stay in the city for treatment unless she could get into the hospital. When she applied for admission she was told that no operation was needed and that she could not be taken in. Dr. G. sent her back again with a more urgent message. She was asked again if she came from Dr. G.. and on replying that she did, she was once more refused admission. Dr. G., believing that the girl was being kept out of the hospital- solely because she had been sent there by a boycotted doctor", appealed to the Society for the Protection of Women for assistance. The secretary of that society, remonstrated with the hospital authorities, and after a delay of some three weeks in all, the girl was admitted and the .operation, which she had been told when she first applied for admission was unnecessary, was-duly performed.. N.B. —Whatever the ground of refusal in this case, it is one, which, from the 'standpoint of the general public as well as the boycotted doctors, evidently demands explanation. The girl being poor and without a home, and Suffering from a painful malady, was obviously the very kind of patient that public hospitals are [ built to accommodate. I 'need hardly ' dwell upon the pain inflicted upon the girl, and the risk of permanent injury to which she was exposed by her long delay.

A CHILD'S DEATH. (2.) —Dr. L. (boycotted), attending an infant brought to him when dangerously ill, .sends the mother with an application, for admission to' the hospital. Admission is refused, and the mother takes the child back again to Dr. L., who sends it again to the hospital. Refused again, the mother appeals once more to Dr. L., who sends her again to the hospital, with an urgent message, which again has no effect. Next day. while the mother is carrying the child for the fourth time to tho hospital, it dies in her arms.

• N.B. —In this case the parents lived in the country, and were too poor to get the child treated in a private hospital. The fact that /the child: actually died while being carried to the hospital, where it had been rejected three times, is' proof that it was, as Dr. L. said, a very urgent case. The inference drawn by the boycotted doctor is that the refusal to admit the case in spite of his urgent appeals, was due to the fact that he was under the bam of the B.M.A. <

A number of other similar cases arc also given. " ■ i A.:CHEMIST AFFECTED. ; The writer also says:— "l may cite tho case of a .well-known suburban chemist who, to avoid trouble with the •8.M.A., took down all his doctors' plates and refused to let his rooms for consultation, because members- of the B.M.A. threatened to boycott him for working with some of the ostracised doctors. I can point out that the injury to the chemist or dispenser does not consist simply in loss of rent, but of custom, and that serious inconvenience and risk may be caused to the sick and suffering by the refusal of doctors to send prescriptions to the nearest available dispenser.

THE NURSES. "As to nurses, whether as individuals or as, managers and proprietors of private hospitals and nursing homes, there is ample evidence to show that the boycott has been extended to them wherever they have ventured to assist any of the ostracised doctors, or even to attend or accommodate any of their patients. This special form of boycott is not specifically or officially recommended by the 8.M.A., and it must be attributed to the mistaken sense-of loyalty or to extreme personal antagonism which has prompted many of its members to seize-upon even this unjust arid cruel expedient as a means of . enforcing its decree against the outcast doctors. One of the largest suburban nursing homes here has been thus absolutely boycotted by many of the B.M.A. doctors, because the manager, who is related to one of the ostracised doctors, has taken in some of his patients. I believe that several other nursing homes arc at present under the B.M.A. ban."