LODGES AND DOCTORS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 29 October 1926, Page 7

LODGES AND DOCTORS

(To The Editor.) Sir, —“Efficiency” puts his finger on tljfs main causes of the differences which have arisen between the Friendly Societies and their doctors. Every intelligent lodge member recognises that the average lodge agreement is bad in that it denies him choice of doctor, and bad because it puts him and his family on a- different footing from the private patient- who pays ordinary fees, and perhaps worst- of all, because it tends to prevent- that . healthy competition which ,so long as human nature is wluit it is, is absolutely necessary in order that men may do their best work. Most of your correspondent’s objections and criticism are met, however, by one of lh e Orders which has recently established branches here and elsewhere, and which, I understand, is drawing large- numbers to its fold. It gives choice of doctor, and its terms are so good that, so far, I believe, no doctor lias refused them, whereas very many doctors will not accept the ordinary lodge terms on any consideration. Unless the friendly societies as a whole fall into line they' will in ten years time find themselves high and dry. It will be a great pity if these tine old orders, which have a splendid record of usefulness behind them, failed to march with the times. The terms on which this new lodge works also disposes effectively of the age-long bone of contention between lodges and doctors, viz., the wealthy lodge patient, who, like the £3 a week man, pays only 25s (or whatever it may be) a year for attendance on bis whole family. The friendly societies do a great work, but, like all other institutions, they lose their usefulness if they fail to adapt themselves to changing circumstances.—l am, etc. EFFICIENCY No. 2.