BRITISH MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17128, 25 April 1921, Page 8

BRITISH MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

QUESTION OF MEDICAL SEOEEOT. (KROM OTO OWN CORRKSPOSBKNT,) LONDON, March 4. As Minister of Health, Dr. Addiwn has shown a degree of activity which has in London provided the N'orthdiffa Press for some time with ample oppoN tunity for criticism. Under tho Health Insurance Acts it was recently mad* compulsory for panel doctors to keep card records of all the illnesses of the insured. This led to a newspaper canpaign of protest, for it was maintain. Ed that the panel cards violated 0m traditional secrecy between doctor and patient, and it was considered that the knowledge made availublo to the clerks in the Ministry of Health might bo used in a dangerous way to the patients themselves. Many doctors pro. tested, but mainly on the ground of unnecessary extra, work. The "Lancet" and the "British Medical Journal" defended the inquisition, but the latter admitted that "in> der any State system there cannot bo the absolute secrecy which exists in private practice, but tho Inter-Depart-mental Committee recommended pre* cautions which, if observed, ought to prevent leakage. The risk that soma confidential clerk employed by the medical officers of the Ministry should come across the records of a private acquaiutane exists, but it is small, and ought to be sufficiently safeguarded by the obligations of discretion and »*■ crccy which the Ministry will impose on persons so employed." This journal also suggested that the newspaper! which were fighting against the inquisition were "engaged in a campaign against tho Ministry of Health." In spito of many protests tho card system came into operation, and noma light was revealed on its workJM by Dr. Addison yesterday, who resided to a question in the House. Mr YotTMt asked the Minister of Health whether he was still receiving any protests from panel doctors as to tho work entailed by filling up the new forms of cards.

"I cannot accept the view that the keeping of records must detract from the time available for giving adequate medical treatment," said Dr Addiwn. 'ln the majority of insurance practical the practitioner is responsible for fewer than one-fourth of the number of iu« sured patients for which, in the view of the doctor's own representatives, an ordinary practitioner can safely assume responsibility. Tlie number of objec* tiona to the record cards from medical men and others concerned in working tho system is insignifiant. Out of Bom* 150 panel committees representing son* 12,000 men on the panel, I have only received protests from" nine, and these mostly on points of detail, although every' effort has been made to stir lip discontent in this matter by certain persons." A committee appointed by Dr. Adds* son to report on the subject of thoan "therapeutic substances" which "caa» not be tested adequately by chemical means" advises a number of drastic changes which will require an Act of Parliament to carry into effect. Tho upshot is "supervision and control"— a controlling authority, an advisory committee, a central Government labor* atory,-licenses, and inspectors. "there is, doubt, room for im» provement in ajfcexion with the teat* inir of and drugs," saw "TRe\ Times." we hnve Mream* the General Medical Council, which SI the body responsible for tho British Pharmacopoeia;<so far as can bo asosr* tained, that body has performed Ht duties well, and might—if necessity «B*j ists—have its powers extended. HI least one hears few complaints. Ti suggest that the sera and vaccines aup* plied by the great drug houses or Vf such institutions as St. Mary's Hot* pital will bo much improved* when all these inspectors and controllers set <* work is not reasonable. Every doctor knows that the present products, speak* ing ttenerallv, are reliable and ho knows also that these firms and it*, stftutions will do all in their power It meet his wishes. What advantage then, we are likely to pain by_ abandon* ing the wise and "non-interfering polkf of the General Medicnl Council and snV* stitutinrj for it a polW of 'control'fcf, the Ministry of Health is not evident At the present moment the scheme a> pears to be one of reckless extrara* gnnee—for we are getting on very watt without it."