THE COERCION OF DOCTORS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24736, 13 October 1941, Page 7

THE COERCION OF DOCTORS

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —Your correspondent Mr J. J. Nyhon dogmatically asserts that "Mr Mason's advocacy of coercion of the doctors is true Socialism." I deny his statement in all its bearings. Socialism does not come / into the question. The doctors are not being coerced, but the B.M.A. is deliberately attempting to coerce the great majority of the electors to abandon their decision, made in 1935. and reconsidered and reaffirmed by an increased number of voters in 1938. to set Up a national co-operative-system of social security, embodying full provision for medical assistance, nursing and medicines, to be financed per wage and income contributions to the Social Security Fund. From the very inception of the scheme, to the present date, the B.M.A. has tried by every means in its power to coerce, or scare with alarmist predictions, the people to abandon the scheme. Does your correspondent doubt my statement? Here is the proof, if proof was needful. In December. 1938, the London correspondent of the Evening Post quoted the opinion of the Medical World (representing some 6000 doctors in Britain, members of the Medical Practitioners' Union), which stated: "That the B.M.A. had been influencing the political situation in New Zealand in a way exceedingly injurious to local doctors, and in a manner by no means

consistent with political indifference." Further, "this interference, is based on the specific ground, that the. sort of Socialism which would provide free medical services for all incomes, under a certain limit, fixed by the British Medical Association, is a good and laudable sort of Socialism, but Socialism which does not recognise an income limit, for its operation is bad, and must be opposed. No one will quarrel with any feffort by the B.M.A. to do everything possible to protect the economic interests of the doctors. But its present action is of a partisan political character." I could give half a dozen similar statements from independent medical sources. Mr Nyhon asks, Do I think the doctor's skill is his own, or that his education, capital and ability are his or the people's? Of course, they are the doctor's. Whoever disputed the fact? But the moneys and the liberty of the people is co-equal with the rights of the 8.M.A., and it is our unquestionable right, under the law, to co-operate nationally to provide a medical or any other communal service, and pay for it collectively, per medium of Social Security funds under Government administration. Will Mr Nyhon dispute that right, or defend the attempt of the B.M.A. to stifle it? I am pleased to find Mr Nyhon in favour of abolishing charitable aid rates, as I have addressed many meetings in favour of the abolition, and derating of rural land. Mr Nyhon's quotations of political addresses are valueless without the context, and therefore, not debatable. Neither do I wish to abolish charity. I simply refuse to allow the B.M.A. to force me into the position of a recipient of

charitable aid, against my will, in its unscrupulous attack on the Social Security law. I object to the B.M.A. tail attempting to wag the national dog. ' " Plain John," poor fellow, is suffering from an acute attack of introspection, or self-examination —an unreliable standard by which to judge others.—l am etc:, W. D. Mason. Middlemarch, October 9.