British Doctors Against New Health Scheme

Wanganui Chronicle, 29 January 1948, Page 5

British Doctors Against New Health Scheme

FIGURES SHOW OPINION HAS BEEN HARDENING (From E. G. Webber.) (N.Z.P.A.— Special Correspondent.) Recd. 6 p.m. London, Jan. 28 On the eve of the plebiscite of the 56,000 registered medical practitioners in Britain, which is being taken by the British Medical Association to ascertain their attitude to the Government’s State medical service proposals, it is already obvious that opinion in the profession has noticeably hardened against co-operation. The results of preliminary voting in the various area branches of the B.M.A. have not all been released, but where the figures save been given majorities nave been very solidly against the new Act. District results so far released are as follows (votes against are mentioned first): North-east Kent: 79 to one. Monmouthshire: 120 to 16. Nottingham: 297 to three. Portsmouth: 140 to three. Bath: 46 to three. Marylebone: 248 to two. Newcastle: 436 to 13. North Wales: 109 to 11. East Sussex: 349 to one. In addition, Gloucestershire voted ten to one against. Huddersfield 97 per cent, against, Essex unanimously against and Sheffield 91 per cent, against. It does not, of course, follow that voting in the national plebiscite will correspond with that in the B.M.A. branches, for a number of doctors on the medical register do not belong to the association. Moreover, the B robabilities are that opponents of tate medicine so far have been more active and vocal than its supporters. Another factor likely to weigh in favour of the State scheme is that a considerable number of foreign doctors now are living in Britain. The majority of these are wartime refugees, and not all of them are practising, but their chief hope of establishing themselves permanently obviously lies in co-operating with a State medical service. There are at present roughly 3000 of these foreign practitioners ■ on the British register. An interesting aspect of the preliminary discussions is that the specialists and consultants, who are offered generous extra inducement to co-operate, appear to be lining up solidly against the scheme.

CONSULTANTS OPPOSE SCHEME This week the Harley Street consultants met and decided to oppose the Government proposals and they were backed by 48 specialists on the staff of the London Hospital, who signed a resolution expressing the opinion “No step leading to a whole

time salaried medical service is in the best interests of the community.” Similar resolutions were passed by consultants at two leading provincial hospitals, the Bristol Royal Infirmary and the Royal Victoria Hospital, Newcastle-on-Tyne. It is also reported that the British Dental Asociation, when It meets later this week, will join the opposition. Qn paper the Government’s proposals offer very generous monetary inducements to the British medical profession. £7O A WEEK OFFERED! General practitioners who cooperate in the scheme are offered an opportunity of making a gross income of nearly £7O a week and specialists will earn considerably more. Expenses, of course, will considerably reduce these earnings, but for the general level of doctors in Britain today they are still more remunerative than returns from an average practice. SAME OBJECTIONS AS HEARD IN NEW ZEALAND Doctors, however, insist that they are not judging the scheme on a purely monetary and selfish basis. Their objections are exactly the same as those which were heard when New Zealand’s State medical scheme was first propounded and, indeed, New Zealand’s experience has freSuently been cited in evidence both or and against the British Act. They object to becoming “nationalised,” to signing away their professional independence, and to allowing the State to intervene in the special relationship between doctor and patient. Their other objections were summarised this week by Doctor S. Wand, a member of the B.M.A. Council, after a meeting at Oxford, where the Minister of Health (Mr. Bevan) addressed a number of medical men. “I say this to the Minister,” said Dr. Wand. “If he will abolish direction and the basic salary, repeal the abolition of the right to purchase and resell practices, and give us a right to appeal to the courts, we will work this Act in the fullest co-opera-tion with any Government?’ All the ballot papers for the plebiscite will be posted this week and are returnable by February 14, but it is not expected the results of the voting will be known for at least 14 days thereafter. NO DIRECT ACTION The B.M.A. has already indicated it will be guided by the result of the plebiscite as tq the attitude it will advise its members to adopt in their future dealings with the Ministry of Health. It has, however, made it plain that if, as seems likely, the Government establishes the scheme against the majority opposition of the medical profession, there will be no question of a doctors’ strike, or any similar direct action. Doctors will continue to serve their patients whatever happens.