UNACCEPTABLE ACT

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 58, Issue 4194, 9 June 1939, Page 5

UNACCEPTABLE ACT

WOMEN CRITICISE SOCIAL SECURITY. LARGE TE AWAMUTU AUDIENCE. An enthusiastic meeting of six hundred women in the Te Awamutu Town Hall yesterday gave a clear indication that the provisions of the maternity benefits under the Social Security Act did not meet with their approval. The meeting which was convened by Mesdames J. G. Wynyard, H. A. Swarbrick and H. J. Webber, was presided over by Mrs Wynyard, who welcomed the two speakers, llts C. Irvine, of Otorohanga, and Mrs D. Mclntosh, J.P., of Tuhikaramea. It was obvious from the opening of the meeting that Mrs Irvine, who attacked the maternity benefits of the Social Security Regulations on the grounds that they were inimical tc personal liberty and would be detrimental to the professional relationship between doctor and patient, had the sympathy of the majority of the women present. Mrs Mclntosh, who is a very able speaker, at times embarrassed her audience with her very searching questions in her support of the measure; but the feeling of the audience was dearly shown in the loud applause which greeted one speaker from the body of the hall who said that in her opinion the doctors were best left to manage their own affairs. Both the principal speakers were listened to most attentatively and were heartily applauded at the conclusion of their addresses. Following the principal. speakers there was about half an hours’ lively debate, during which the chairwoman had several times to call the meeting to order. At no time, however, did the chainvoman have difficulty in giving all who wanted to speak a fair hearing. A resolution, proposed by Mrs Swarbrick, was carried by an overwhelming majority on the voices. The resolution was: “That this meeting of the women of the Te Awamutu district finds unacceptable the Social Security Act Maternity Benefits Regulations and strongly supports the British Medical Association’s opposition to the scheme. NO COMPROMISE. Before the passing of the resolution Mrs F. J. B. Ryburn offered an amendment. She said she thought the resolution was too drastic and that perhaps, in view of Mrs McIntosh’s speech, they did not know as much about the matter as they thought and accordingly she moved that the meeting ask for better understanding and co-operation between Government and the doctors. The amendment found no favour at all with the audience and was easily lost on the voices. On the motions of Mrs W. Locke and Mrs Finn it was enthusiastically decided to send copies of the resolution to the Prime Minister, the Minister in charge of Social Security, the president of the British Medical Association and local Members of Parliament. Before the conclusion of the meeting Mrs Mclntosh expressed the opinion that the resolution had infringed the chairwoman’s agreement that it would not be a political one; and that they had voted on a matter on which they knew very little. Both the chairwoman and the audience (loudly) disagreed with this view; and a motion was lost that the Minister in charge of Social Security or Dr McMillan be asked to come to Te Awamutu and fully explain the plain the regulations. In answer to a number of questions Mrs Irvine said that her attitude could be summed up in the stand that, although they were grateful for the recognition implied by maternity benefits ; they should demand that payments be made direct to the individual mothers. In her remarks she had not sought to give the impression that there would be a conscious falling off in the doctors’ work under the Social Security Regulations, but that the restrictions must interfere with the quality and fullness of the service. The meeting closed with a hearty vote of thanks to the chair. LOSS OF LIBERTY. Opening her address with the observation that she did not remember a time when the women of New Zealand were so alive as to what was taking place in social life, Mrs Irvine said that could probably be accounted for by the fact that so much was being done in legislation which vitally affected the interests of women, and she hoped that the meeting would examine her remarks with freedom from political biias. She was willing to recognise that the Social Security Act was a worthy and long overdue recognition of the service of women; but she was opposed to it on' the grounds that it was, whatever its benefits, a definite restriction of personal liberty. No woman, and she herself least of all, would tolerate being told what doctor to go to when ill. That was her first ground of opposition to the Act. On this point she built a second point of opposition, and that was the bad psychological effect of compulsion and the deprivation of choice. Woman was a creature of fancies and moods as much as of reason, and the maternity benefits would be nullified if the mother could not choose her own doctor. A third ground of opposition was that she personally, and she thought most women, would object to having their case histories open to Government inspection. It was often necessary for a doctor to be in possession of a good deal of personal and family history. Under the present system that information was given and retained in professional confidence. “Under the new system,” said Mrs Irvine, “all that is washed out, and our lives will be open to Government inspectors.” DETERIORATION OF SERVICE. “Under the regulations I have to arrange my times to be sick. I am only an ordinary woman,” she continued, “and I cannot determine the degree of urgency of my case; and

yet if I call the doctor wrongly I am liable to be penalised.” Nothing but deterioration in’ the standard of medical service could be hoped for under the regulations, said Mrs Irvine. The Act could mean nothing but the lowering of the standard of professional service. Under past conditions they had enjoyed a high standard of service; and an alteration of those conditions would destroy the doctors’ incentive to specialisation. For the most part the women of New Zealand did not realise the liberties and privileges they enjoyed; but the present Act attacked those rights, and they were leaving the doctors to do their fighting for them. It was their duty to voice their protest and support the doctors. The British Medical Association, and, she felt, also the majority of women, asked that the benefits under the Act should be paid over to the mother who would then have the liberty of choosing her own doctor. The idea of maternity benefits in the Act was welcome and an outstanding contribution to New Zealand life, but she most strongly opposed the restriction of liberty imposed by the regulations. “My reason for addressing this meeting,” concluded Mrs Irvine, “is that the Medical Association is being discouraged in its opposition; and it is the duty of the women to see that they get the support they need.” IN SUPPORT OF THE SCHEME. MRS McINTOSH’S ADDRESS. “It is not a matter of concern to me,” said Mrs Mclntosh, “whethei this audience agrees with my views or with Mrs Irvine’s; but it is a matter of importance that we should know what we are talking about. It is useless making our minds up about a matter when we do not possess the facts to form a judgment. I have had a good deal of experience of women’s organisations; and I can call to mind many cases where resolutions have been passed which those ’ who passed them have regretted when they had the situation fully explained to them. There is no urgency that we should make up our minds but there is urgency that we should establish the facts.” Like Mrs Irvine, said Mrs McIntosh, she deplored that party politics should cloud any issue, and she could agree with Mrs Irvine that unrest and suspicion were rife in most of their problems. It was necessary to establish confidence in public relationships. Practically everyone acted with the best of intentions; and it should be their endeavour to appreciate the good intentions behind the Social Security Act. “How many of you,” she asked, “can say you know the clauses and regulations of that part of the Act which deals with maternity benefits? “If you do not know the regulations where do you get the—bravery might I call it—to criticise the Act?’ The British Medical Association said one thing and Government said another, said the speaker; and from the tone of the meeting it was obvious that many of them were accepting the doctors’ version only. The doctors were excellent professional men; but even they ■would not claim that they were ministering angels. The Medical Association itself had admitted that it had no means of knowing the opinions of individual doctors. PROVISIONS OF REGULATIONS. Mrs Irvine had practically confined her criticism of the Act to the points raised by the Medical Association. One was that if the Act were enforced, as it now was, the doctors would not be able to give the service they had given in the past. Why should they accept that statement? Each woman, she knew, would continue to believe that her doctor would give the best service he could under any conditions. The statement also had been made that the areas to be served by a doctor would be prescribed by the Government without the wishes of the doctor being consulted. She could not find any such provision 4n the regulations. An explanation of the various details in the regulations was then given by Mrs Mclntosh, who stressed the frequency with which the phrase “having respect first of all to the patient” modified any provisions. She also discounted the suggestion that there would be a hard-and-fast delineation of areas. It was, she maintained, only reasonable that the interests of the doctors themselves should be protected in some measure, and said it would be impossible to devise a scheme in which any person anywhere in New Zealand could have any doctor she wanted. Those who wished a special doctor, say in Auckland, would have the same privilege as they now enjoyed; they could get him if they were willing to pay the extra money. In this respect Mrs Mclntosh drew a parallel between the provisions of the Social Security Act and the Education Act. Each provided a free service; but none were compelled to use that service. There could be no charge of loss of liberty under such conditions. FEAR OF PUBLICITY. The limitation of service hours and urgency was, in her opinion, a perfectly justifiable measure; but in considering it they would do well to remember that it was their own doctor who would determine the reasonableness of a call; and it was in his power,* and his power only, to decide if the call was one of urgency. Did the doctor now always answer their calls—did he not from the information he received over the phone decide if the call was urgent? “Any information that the Government inspector gets concerning your case, under the provisions of the Act,” said Mrs Mclntosh, “would be given by your doctor. It is absurd to think that any doctor would pass on personal information, or a case record, with the patient’s name attached to it, to be handled in an open office by clerks. Case records would lose their personal identity before they left the doctor’s hands. The fear of publicity is unreasonable.” “Finally in respect of the restrictive regulations, you are getting a tremendous number of rights under the Act, so surely you will not deny the doctors some rights? They must be protected—not be left at the mercy of a few unreasonable women. “A great deal of what I have told you will be new,” said Mrs Mclntosh, near the conclusion of her speech,

“and as it is new it will be received with suspicion. I have not sought to deny what Mrs Irvine has told you. I do not claim that her statements are incorrect, but I claim they are incomplete.”