The Southland Times MONDAY, MAY 15, 1939. The Government And The Doctors

Southland Times, Issue 23817, 15 May 1939, Page 6

The Southland Times MONDAY, MAY 15, 1939. The Government And The Doctors

THE Government’s decision to establish maternity services under the Social Security Act in spite of the fact that only 22 doctors have signed contracts out of a total professional membership of more than 900 has caused an impasse which threatens to disturb public opinion, to dislocate the operation of a health service of vital importance, and to degrade the entire question to the level of a political argument that shows every sign of becoming interminable. No one is likely to be surprised by the statement made on Saturday by the Minister of Health, who took pains to point out that “those concerned with the interests of mothers in any district should know that the absence of services is entirely due to those who can give their services refusing to do so.” The doctors can say justly that knowledge, experience and their own record of service throughout the country give them the right to claim a far closer concern with the “interests of mothers” than is now being shown by politicians who insist on disregarding the views of the medical profession and are trying to coerce it into accepting a scheme which it believes will not provide the benefits desired by. the Government. It should be plain to all reasonable persons that the Government had no right to promise a health service until it had succeeded in securing the co-operation of the doctors: if this co-operation were not available to establish the scheme in its original form some attempt should have been made to find a new basis for negotiation acceptable to both parties. As Dr J. P. S. Jamieson suggests in a statement printed this morning, the Government has lost “three valuable years” through listening to bad advice. A New Approach

But this need not mean that co-operation is impossible in the future. “The willing co-operation of the whole profession concerned with maternity work can be secured immediately,” says Dr Jamieson, “if the Minister will give effect to the method proposed by the association, whereby the maternity benefit would operate as a cash benefit payable to the patient.” Even if this method is unacceptable to the Government it should not be impossible to find some way of providing a service which would satisfy both sides. In its present form the maternity service will be costly to operate and will expose the doctors to an irksome official interference, in addition to making drastic changes in their professional status. If the Government sincerely hopes to provide the best possible health scheme it should give some indication that it is willing to meet the doctors half-way and share with them the task of shaping a system in which the emphasis will be placed on health rather than on politics. So far it has adopted an unyielding attitude. It grants the doctors a freedom of choice in signing contracts and yet makes a statement, through a Cabinet Minister, which implies that the doctors are to be blamed for using this democratic privilege. At the end of his statement Dr Jamieson appeals to the Minister of Health “not to reject the advice and sincere offer of co-operation which the profession tenders.” If this appeal is disregarded the Government may find it hard to convince the people that its sole motive in prolonging the dispute is a disinterested concern for the public health.