Cleric Opposes Slate Monopoly Of Medical Services

Northern Advocate, 17 September 1941, Page 3

Cleric Opposes Slate Monopoly Of Medical Services

[Special to “Northern Advocate”! WELLINGTON, This Day Preaching at St. Peter’s Church, Wellington, Archdeacon Bullock gave some outspoken comments on the provision of the Social Security Amendment Bill which makes provision for the Government’s medical practitioner scheme. “The question is whether the State should assume a monopoly of healing and preventative medicines in this country,” he said. “For while specialists are not mentioned in the Bill, it was made quite clear by the Minister that they will later on be included in this all-em-bracing State service that is projected. “Unfortunately the question has become one of Party politics. This is, I think, regrettable and unnecessary. For a service that' will be so farreaching and upon which will depend the life and health of every man, woman and child in the community, ought surely to be decided by a nonpolitical and expert body of opinion. To such a body of opinion the matter has not, I understand, been submitted. “That there is room for a State service is obvious. There is probably no civilised country today where there is no State medical service, but a State monopoly is an entirely different thing. The existence of panel systems where also private practice is allowed is one thing, and a State monopoly is another, and it is a State monopoly of medical service which the proposed measure has in view. Public Trust Analogy “Let me illustrate. We have here in New Zealand a Public Trust Office carrying on efficiently and well in rendering legal service. But I think we should hesitate before we agree that the State should have a monopoly of such service. “It seems plain that the doctors are to be coerced into a system which robs them of elemental rights. It is not merely a question of the right to live, or the right to possess limited property, but the right also to develop himself in his own way through the science of healing and medicine. “For let it be remembered when the doctor is once the wage slave of the State he will not be free. If the State pays the piper it will also call the | nine. Emphasis On Haste “Quite obviously he ivho gets through more consultations will reap the greater reward. What must be the inevitable result of such a system ? Clearly there will be a temptation to treat as many cases as possible in a superficial 1 and a sketchy way. “Is it fair, is it just, to subject any body of men to such conditions ? We must remember that doctors are men, and men are not angels. “I question very much whether any body of men of any profession—lawyers, accountants, plumbers and even a bench of bishops—should be placed in such trying circumstances. “What may have prompted the Minister in bringing in his measure I cannot say, but it would appear that its inevitable result will be to endow out of State funds the mediocre and the the incompetent, and to discourage the painstaking and conscientious doctor. “The effect of this upon the health of the communiity may not be speedily observed, and the high standards and traditions of the medical service will do much to prevent a deterioration in the doctor’s 5 service; yet I think there can be only one end eventually—a lowered standard of medical service with consequent ill-effects upon the whole community. It is the injustice to the community that will ensue that provides the main argument against the proposed measures. Peoples’ Mandate “Let me deal briefly with another point. It has been asserted that the people, when they elected the l Government to office, voted for such a measure. Such an assertion is merely political vapour—very few, I am bold to say, when they gave their votes at the last election ever contemplated anything so drastic as a State rrvmopoly of medicine. “Finally, I may be charged in saying these things with dabbling in politics. But when some measure is contemplated that means injustice to a section of the people and danger to them all, it is the duty of Christians to speak, and to speak forcibly. Must the Church always be accused of complacency or cowardice at such times, when one of her main duties is to make clear the ethical principles of our religion ? ”