NEWSPAPER COMMENT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 76, 10 September 1941, Page 4

NEWSPAPER COMMENT

BILL SHARPLY CRITICISED REPRESENTATIVE OPINIONS j Principles in the Bill are elucidated and criticised in the following extracts i from newspaper editorials: — The “Christchurch Star-Sun.”— ] Many persons in the community will j not be much concerned over the vicious i principle of socialisation, and others might swallow coercion as long as it brought a comprehensive medical ser- ' vice into being, but this Bill is thor- \ oughly bad in principle and it is sure to | be injurious in practice, as the presi- • dent of the B.M.A. has said. The plan ;is to give the public a free choice of ; doctors at fees to be paid out of the I Social Security Fund for every atten- ! dance at the surgery or at the home. In j j practice this l'ree-for-all principle will j j simpl. overwhelm the already overworked home section of doctors, and , therein lies its first danger in forcing | down the standard of medical practice ! ancl service. The tendency must be at 'least to shorten consultations, but the I system might also induce the general j practitioner to undertake work bej yond his limitations. On the other .hand if the most conscientious doctor | recommended specialist treatment at j the first consultation there would be ' nothing to stop the patient from disrej garding the advice and doing the round j of doctors in the hope of evading the [extra fees that would be payable for ’ the specialist service. But these posi sibilities only touch the fringe of a i subject which has its roots in the fact | that doctors ought to be induced to lift I themselves by research, travel and j { study to the point where they will earn ; the higher rewards v..f specialist know- : ledge. The Bill is bristling with these i and othtr dangers which strike at the j principle of the greatest good for the ! greatest number. j “The Press,” Christchurch—What--1 ever may be supposed to be the [Minister’s intention, if the doctors do not budge and the Social Security i Amendment Bill becomes law, he has j not taken power to compel them, and he has taken power to approve their ! continuing to practise and to charge [ fees as they do now. Whether this ; is a loophole, designed to be used as : such, or whether it is merely a device jto avoid the naked appearance of coercion in the Bill, will sooner or later become clearer; but it is obvious that the Government has not simplified {or clarified its own course, or choice of : courses. It has brought renewed press- ; ure to bear on the doctors. It has also renewed for itself the danger of having to choose between retreat, if the doctors do not yield, or insistence, by the indirect means in the Minister’s power. These are deplorable possibilities. If the Government does not retreat, it is unlikely to do so without protesting that it has been frustrated by medical conspirators. If it coerces them, or tries to, it will aggravate the present difficulties of the medical profession most dangerously. Either way, the injustice will be heavy, and the prospects of a sane solution of the problem damaged by political agitation and resentments. The mischievousness of attempting to force a solution now is apparent. The “Timaru Herald.”—The first re- ! actions of the medical profession show i that the legislation in its present form I has aroused the resentment of the ! doctors. It is natural that they should ; not wish the status of their profession to be changed to that of a State-con-i trolled enterprise while so many of (their colleagues are serving abroad with the Second New Zealand Expeditionary Force. These absent ones are entitled to be heard on a question j which affects their future so serious- 1 ly. It has been properly observed by ! medical critics of the legislation that ! the Government would not dream of j j treating any industry or organised ! I labour group in the way it now pro- ! | poses to treat the medical profession, i |. . . In fairness to the profession as a ; ! whole the Government would be doing | ja gracious act if it decided to leave its i I free medical practitioner scheme until (after the war. Those who cannot pay: ; tor medical service now get it free; j I that is one of the honourable traditions j (of the profession. If the Government! merely wishes to square its conscience with the people in an election year it could do so by reducing the Social ' Security tax until it is able to provide ' all the benefits it promised. The “Waikato Times,” Hamilton.— j The course mapped out by the Gov- ! eminent for the medical profession in ! New Zealand emphasises the extent to ! which the programme of socialisation has developed. . . The public of New | Zealand, and not least the medical men themselves, heartily agree that an [ (amended form of medical service that 'will provide adequate medical care for j those who cannot afford to meet the ; whole cost is eminently desirable. It is I (the wholesale nature of the State j scheme, by which rich ps well as poor 1 i art to receive the “free” service mi i

dcr compulsion, to which objection is taken. Here there are two rival schemes, one formulated by a political body on such advice az it had taken and the other by the medical profession, which since the beginning of time has borne the responsibility of caring for the sick and which, it is admitted, has made astonishing progress in the science of treating human casualties. It would be ridiculous to suggest that politics have nothing to do with the Government’s insistence upon the operation of the State scheme. The measure is almost certain to become law. One effect will be to impose a heavy additional strain on the Social Security Fund, which will have to be subsidised more generously from general taxation. Terminological pedantry demands that the common appellation “free” medical service should be discarded.