WAR PENSIONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18877, 1 June 1923, Page 2

WAR PENSIONS.

STRAIGHT TALK FROM GENERAL M'GAVIN. SOME STARTLING FACTS AND FIGURES. (From Oub Own Correspondent.)-■'■;/' WELLINGTON, May; 31. From time to time criticism of the Government and of the War Pensions Department appears in the public prints, and certain members of Parliament are apparently only • 100 ready to make political capital;, oat of them. The actual facts are often very different from the statements made. To-day I have received from Sir R.. Hearon Rhodes (Minister of Defence) a statement by Major-general Sir Donald M'Gavm, Director-general of Medical Services, and a member of the Pensions Board, which puts the position clearly, and should give the critics as well as the general public food for serious thought. The statement, which' is the result of an article appearing in the Lyltelton Times, dated May 24, 19*6, headed "Treatment of Ex-Soldiers," is as follows: '■Much misunderstanding exists as to the working of the War Pensions Department. Medical treatment and war pensioning go together, and as regards the question of entitlement a decision affecting one affects also the other; in fact, the only question to be decided is the atrributability of a disability to service. This decision is not tirade by the Director-general of Medical Services, as stated by the Christchurch Returned Soldiers' Association, but by the War Pensions Board, of which the Directorgeneral is one of four members, the others being a magistrate, a layman (the nominee of the R.S.A.), and a medical man, who was a member of the N.Z.E.F., as was also the D.G.M.S. It is not understood why the Christchurch Returned' Soldiers' Association so repeatedly endeavours to perteuade the public that questions of entitlement are decided entirely -by the Director-general of Medical Services. Presumably it is because if they succeed in attaching any blame to one individual, instead of four in conference, they would find it easier to get revised a system which does not grant all their demands. It is clearly to be understood that in deciding entitlement to war pension and medical treatment the only question to,,be considered is the relation between the service of the applicant and the disability,, in respect o£ which the claim is made. For pension or treatment no consideration as to the financial condition of the claimant, the number of necessities of his dependents, noteven meritorious service in the field, can be permitted to influence the decision. In mariy cases my department feels that the applicant urgently requires assistance, but under the necessity of maintaining this one clear view of pensioning it is unable to render that assistance in the form of war pension. The War Pensions Board gives most >care-;; ful and anxious consideration to all cases' brought before it. It is always ready to receive any fresh evidence, and indeed con"-' stantly invites applicants for pension to forward evidence of any disabilities occuring since thair discharge, of which the board is necessarily ignorant. Further, the board is prepared to accept evidence of injury or disability alleged to have occurred while on service, but of which there is no departmental record. In several cases where this evidence has been brought forward to support.a claim the board has granted a pension whero it was previously refused. In' other words, the board does not consider itself bound by a previous decision' if-fresh pvldence becomes available which modifies that, decision. Mr M'Combs is reported to have said that although it was promised that where there was a doubt the benefit of that doubt was given to the soldier, that policy as far as Christchurch was concerned- was not being carried out. .tWen if. courts of law doubts' may exist, and. a case has to •• be decided on a balance ~of evidence. Doubt varies in quality and degree, from the most speculative to such a reasonable doubt as influences ordinarily intelligent human beings in the conduct of their affairs. It is clear that only reasonable doubt can be considered in any practical association with the. events of life. I say again ihat the benefit of any reasonable doubt is given to the applicant for pension. It is to be pointed, out that the War Pensions Board in arriving at its decisions has available to- it all the records of the case to be investigated, and . also. the best medical opinion in the country, of which opinion. it constantly makes use by securing reports from; specialists. ' It is extraordinary "to contemplate the assurance "with which individuals not in posses-' sion of the records will assert that a disability is undoubtedly due to war service, 1 when the War Pensions Board, with all 'information and expert opinion available to it, has decided to the contrary. It is recognised that to a certain extent these individuals are encouraged in their views Dr medical certificates of practitioners wno, knowing nothing of the History of the.'case, boldly., assert that.it is due to war service. •In forming such an opinion the medical practitioner can rely only upon, the state-, meiiio of the applicant. I regret that it is necessary to say_ that the applicants' statements as to tneir past experiences are not always to be relied upon. I am informed that there is no condition apart irom obvious wounds or injury from which an applicant for war pension, can , suf-i fer. which a medical practitioner as" a result merely of a physical examination can certify as due to war service. The' certincatos of medical practitioners as to the actual physical condition of an individual at the time of examination are accepted without hesitation' by my department. In that field the medical practitioner is . thoroughly entitled and competent to express an opinion. When, however, he states that, a particular disability is the result of war service he can base his opinion only on the statements of individual, who so far ;as ';the practitioner- is 'War© from his own knowledge, may never actually have been in the forces at all. This fact, in relation to medical certificates, is supported by several examples such as cases in which an applicant for pension, who has never left _ New Zealand, has been stated by a medical practitioner to lie suffering from gassing lor shell shook, the .'un-■ doubted result of his war service? It is not implied that medical men attempt to mislead the department by these certifi--cates. .The mental attitude of the medical practitioner is to accept all the statements of pafient, because he instinctively; assumes that'those statements will be correct, as in ordinary life it is to the interests of ihe individual to _ give an, accurate statement of his condition to his physician. In the case of applicants for pension, however, it is clear that it may be to the material interests of a patient to exaggerate or misstate his case. The fault of the medical .practitioner—if fault it be—is, therefore, one of generous credulity," through which he falls'into error, which he would avoid if he confined himself to the statement of the facts within his own.knowr ledge. It is' necessary to refer to a certain class of case in which it is true'disability arose on service, but those disabilities resulted from the soldiers own misconduct, lor which the Government can take' no responsibility. It is unnecessary further to specify the nature of these cases, but I am compelled to draw attention to them in this connection. These individuals then refused pension have been made the medium of attack on the department which.has not in the past stated the reasons for refusing pension in these cases, as this might be prejudicial to the individual in his business an J social life. Some individuals, however, fully aware of the department's considerate attitude, have taken advantage of that attitude to attack it, knowing that the department will not defend itself by stating the facts. Although the claims of returned soldiers have been constantly voiced during recent years, there has been apparently no public recognition of the fact that there is another party to be considered—i.e., the State. ,It would be much easier, and much more popular, to grant claims which are constantly being pressed. The purchase of popularity by tlie too free granting of pensions would be extremely easy, and pleasant entitlement to pension would then become proportionate to the importunity or influence of the applicant. Anxious though every member of the Government, and, indeed, every loyal citizen of the dominion, is to deal generously with returned soldiers, there must bo some limit to , what may reasonably bo expected of the State. Since the institution of the war pensions scheme, concessions have been granted in many directions, both in pensioning and medical treatment, resulting -in the provision, for war pensioners in this country being probably more liberal and more liberally interpreted fha'n in any other. It-was : by the gradual process of encroachment that war pensions, after the American Civil War, reached the extraordinary position quoted by a Well-known authority on war pensions as follows:—'A year, after General Lee surrendered 'at Appomattox there Were on .the pehsion roll 126,522 men and women, totalling an expenditure cf 14,450,550 dollars. Exactly 44 years after Lee's surrender—-, viz., 1909, the number of beneficiaries had reached 946.914. involving the payment of 161.971,703 dollars. . In other words; as a, recent, writer discussing these figures :;ob-, served, the people of the United States. are to-day paying out in pensions'annually' to men ' and women Presumed to have

suffered through' .si war. fougfct lout and finished 45 years ago; a'" sunY 10 "times as great as that paid in tlio year immediately following the war.'. 'Though ;.it-".must be apparent to all who give thought to the matter, this extract is quoted to-.'show the position we should.arrive afc'iii this dominion nnloßs th'e\\Var Pensions. Act is -administered, not only in' the',interest'of" the returned soldier, 'but also ..with due regard to the interests of the' State."