REPUDIATION BY DOCTORS

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

REPUDIATION BY DOCTORS

Minister’s Mention Of Boycott

“STATEMENT DEEPLY RESENTED”

GOVERNMENT BLAMED FOR IMPASSE (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 14. An emphatic protest against the action of the Minister of Health (the Hon. P. Fraser) in raising the question of a possible boycott by the profession of those members serving under the maternity benefit contract is made by Dr J. P. S. Jamieson, chairman of the National Health Insurance Committee of the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association.

“I cannot,” said Dr Jamieson, “allow such a serious allegation to pass without immediately repudiating it on behalf of the whole of the medical profession throughout New Zealand and entering an emphatic protest against the i action of the Minister in giving expression to it. i “The Minister states:—‘l have been I informed that some practitioners fear that if they sign the contract in accordance with their own wishes, opinions and consciences they will run the risk of professional injury through deliberate non-co-operation on the part of their fellow practitioners.’ “So ill-founded is this fear in the Minister’s own belief that he hastens to add: ‘From my knowledge of the I medical profession I have no hesitation lin stating my belief that neither the * official organization nor any responsible section of the profession would stoop to such methods.’ As the Minister himself has no belief in the allegation, then surely he had no right to put it forward. Yet he goes on to suggest methods for dealing with what he knows to be an unthinkable and wholly imaginary situation. Says Mr Fraser: ‘lf any irresponsible section or individual would be so misguided as to attempt any such retaliatory methods, then as soon as the attention of the Government was drawn to the fact steps would immediately be taken to combat such reprehensible action and the full protection of the State would be extended to practitioners against whom such methods were used. The boycott weapon is dangerous at all times and in all circumstances would earn the reprobation of all decent people if applied in any form or under any pretext where the lives of mothers and babies were involved and possibly in danger.’

PARTICULARS WANTED “How can this latter statement,” commented Dr Jamieson, “be reconciled with the Minister’s previous expression of his disbelief based as it is on his own intimate knowledge of the profession? In ordinary justice the serious nature of the chrrge demands further particulars of the source of the Minister’s information,” Dr Jamieson concluded. “On behalf of the whole profession I again repudiate the suggestion which implies unworthy motives to my colleagues and have no hesitation in saying that the Minister’s statement will be deeply resented by the profession and the public alike. “The impasse that has been arrived at in the provision of maternity services is the creation of the Government and is its responsibility,” said Dr Jamieson. “It is common sense that when a Government in a democratic country desires to introduce any radical change which it cannot operate itself it must first be assured of the consent of the other persons concerned and of their willingness to co-operate. The administrative function, for the public good, should be to smooth out difficulties rather than to intensify them. The wisdom of this course applies with even greater force when the matter at issue is one of general public health.” Dr Jamieson reiterated that the Government had rejected the expert advice of the medical profession and said that it was attempting to go ahead with its own scheme, which the British Medical Association warned it would prove unacceptable and inapplicable. “How is one to account for this,” he asked. “The truth is that the Government has been completely misled by its own advisers especially as to what would be the attitude of the medical association when the matter came to the definite issue. The response to the offer of contract for maternity service proves this beyond dispute. The sooner the Government recognizes that its scheme cannot be put into effective operation and accepts the practical advice of the association the sooner will it be able to make progress with a sound scheme in which it will receive the fullest co-operation of the whole medical profession.

“VALUABLE YEARS WASTED” “Actually through the Government being badly advised three valuable years have been wasted, for which the medical profession throughout New Zealand cannot with any sense of justice be held to blame. “The Minister is in error when he says the absence of service is entirely due to those who can give service refusing to do so. , “The published lists reveal the inefficiency of the service about to be put into operation. This is due to the Government’s adherence to its own preconceived ideas. The willing co-opera-tion of the whole of the profession concerned with maternity work can be secured immediately 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. Such a method would not only put the whole profession at the service of mothers but would enable mothers, wherever situated, to make their arrangements without the intervention of any third party. This would also relieve the department of the high costs of the administration of this benefit. “Obviously, the co-operation between the Government and the profession on which the success of any scheme depends and which all desire, must be two-sided. The profession offered its co-operation but the Government rejected it and wants its own way; hence the onus for the present position is on the Government. The profession, morally and legally by the Government’s own Act, is entitled to decline offers of service and I submit that because its members exercised this right they cannot be held to be obstructionists, even by the Government. “It is unwise in the introduction of a scheme such as this to take a course which tends to set the people against the doctors, the doctors against themselves and all against the Minister’s own department. I therefore urge the Minister not to reject the advice and sincere offer of co-operation which the profession tenders.”