B.M.A’s Answer To the “Big Stick”

Manawatu Times, Volume 66, Issue 115, 16 May 1941, Page 2

B.M.A’s Answer To the “Big Stick”

MINISTER’S THREAT CHRISTCHURCH, May 13. “Allowing for the heat engendered at a political meeting, the remarks of the Minister of Health, Mr A. H. Nordtmeyer, made at the social of the Christchurch South branch of the Labour Party, are reprehensible as they are completely misleading,” says a atatement issued by the Canterbury division of the British Medical Association. “Once more the Minister resets to threats of coercion, which ill befit one in liis office,” adds the statement. “He says ‘that tyranny exists in the British Medical Association,’ which is completely untrue. The association has never done anything to victimise the few members who have signed medical cards. There is no disciplinary machinery in connection with the British Medical Association. All members are entirely free to act as their conscience guides them. “The doctors’ opposition to Government control in any form depends on their knowledge that such would cause degeneration in the standard of service. The offer of subsidies to the lodges by the Government carries with it insidious dangers. Independence is the keynote of all friendly societies, embodied in the titles of many of ihem. Government subsidies threaten this independence. “It is not to be imagined that the Government will continue to subsidise the societies without laying down conditions for the expenditure of the money. Inevitably, there would come regulations imposed upon the lodge contracts. There would be an enormous increase in the lodge membership, and the lodge doctors would be under two sets of masters instead of one. No Guarantee ‘lt would not be any different to th<c .odors whether they worked for the odges under the Social Security Act, r worked directly under the Social Security Act. The Minister only used he word ‘if’ when he remarked, ‘if he Government did not interfere in •ny way with the lodges or the con.racts under which the doctors served cha lodges.’ He obviously cannot give a guarantee that the Government would abandon its right to lay down conditions for the expenditure of the money given cs subsidies.

“The Minister is continually Inconsistent. At one time h: states that the Government free medical service scheme is entirely voluntary on behalf of both patient alid doctor, and at another he utters threats of wielding the big stick and the use of force. At one times he states ♦at the medical scheme is very successful; at another he says it is necessary to subsidise the lddges, which would not have been necessary if the scheme were successful. “At a meeting of the Canterbury division of the British Medical Association, a committee was appointed to meet delegates of the friendly societies to point out how serious and insidious was this offer of subsidies in menacing the independence of the friendly societies, and to explain that action on the part of the doctors obviously had nothing to do with financial reasons on their part. The doctors neither stand to gain nor lose financially by the proposal. “But the doctors realise that acceptance of subsidies would entail successive interferences by the Government in the affairs of the lodges, leading to a general practitioner service by a backdoor method, for ‘who pays the piper calls the tune-’ ” The statement says that the Minister’s listeners were told that the doctors were usurping the functions of government. On the contrary, the doctors had always acted constitutionally according to law. There was no law under which a doctor was compelled to work for a Government scheme. On other occasions the Minister had emphasised that the Government’s scheme for medical service was voluntary on the part of both patient and doctor. How can a voluntary scheme require the “wielding of the big stick” as long as there is any meaning in the word “voluntary”?

Willing to Co-operate. Impartial examination of the records | ~t the interchanges between the British f Medical Association and previous Min- 2 ':ters of Health revealed that doctors § ad always been willing to co-operate = i any scheme which would not cause | in the standard of medi- § al practice. The present Minister of f -lealth was guilty either of ignorance of = these reports or of wilful misrepresenta- § tion of the facts. E From the Minister’s recent speech the 5 following excerpt is quoted:—“Because | of the tyranny exercised by persons in | responsible positions in the British I 2 Medical Association, the rank and file = are not unwilling but only unable to § co-operate as they personally wouUi = like. | “This is grossly untrue,’’ says the E statement, “and it comes ironically | from one who, though depending on the § votes of the majority, knows the mean- 2 ing of the word ‘disciplinary.’ “The British Medical Association is 2 a totally free democratic institution, ? membership of which is voluntary and E there is absolutely no tyranny or dis- 2 ciplinary action associated with it. The S Minister should know this and should = not mislead the people. No action what- 2 ever has been taken by the British 2 Medical Association against those few 2 members who have signed Government | cards. I “The Minister’s vehemence and 2 threats of coercion were occasioned by 2 the results of recognition by the | British Medical Association of the | danger to the independence of the | j lodges of ‘ peaceful penetration ’ in- 2 j volved in the Government’s offer of a 2 subsidy to the friendly societies. The | I Minister ignores the fact that no Gov- | ! ernment would permanently abandon f I its right to lay down conditions for the = expenditure of money given the 2 |friendly societies as subsidies.”