SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE, ETC.

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2810, 30 June 1916, Page 6

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE, ETC.

Sir,—l notice that the Minister of Public Health was questioned in the House by Mr. It. Fletcher, M.P., concerning : the British Medical Association and its attitudo towards registered medical practitioners who are not members thereof. The Minister's answer was as follows:— "The Department is fully awnre of the circumstances, and hopes the British Medical Association will not set up a position by Tcfusing to consult with registered 'medical practitioners not members of that body. .If such action as the hon. member refers to is taken by tho British Medical Association, the Department is prepared to take any steps that may be necessary in tho interest of tho public." As this is a distinct threat to the members of an honourable profession, it may be well to set forth clearly tho facts which, have given rise to the dispute.. Members of friendly societies have fori years past been attended by medical ?ractitioners at a fixed fee per annum, t has long been recognised that the amount of the fee was quite inadequate; but many young, practitioners were willing to accept these ridiculously small fees, because they thereby became more , -widely known. The wage was barely-a living one, and nearly all men would discontinue' lodge practice so soon as they were able to do so. It will hardly be credited that tho fee paid to a lodge doctor was 15s, per club member per Vinnum; and for this magnificent sum he> had to attend throughout the year the member, his wife, his children up to 16 years of age, and his mother if she were living in the house. Tie.had to be ready to attend day or night, which of course entailed keeping a trap or motorcar. Lodge doctors being dissatisfied with these conditions, intimated lhat they should in future demand higher fees from the lodges. To this the lodges replied thnt they wonld not grant the demand,'and that if it were persisted in they' would import doctors from elsewhere, who would not belong to the Britis*i. Medical Association, and who would work for the lower fee. The British Medical Association replied that they could not abate their demand for a higher fee; and.that, if foreign doctors, not members of the association, were. imported, members of the association would not consult with them.

Now, I'should like to point out to alt those who have sympathy with the attitude of trades unionists in their disputes with employers that tliu attitude' of tho British Medical Association should equally engage their sympathy.: When the members of a trades union consider that they are not receiving wages commensurate with the value of their labour, they demand more and refuse to work for less. If, .then, the employers refuse to grant tho increase and "import non-unionists to do the work at a lower wage, would not the unionists refuse to work alongside the non-unionists? In either case, though it would be manifestly wrong to prevent by. force., a blackleg from working, even if he choose to accept'a sweating wage; yet nothing could compel a unionist to work alongside a non-unionist, if ho objected to do 60. Tho members of the British Medical Association have no intention of following the example of some trades unions who use physical force to'.intimidate blacklegs, but they must bfi excused for refusing to consult or work with them; nor would forced or unwilling consultations be of much avail, for*just as you may easily bring a horse to the water you may yet bo quite unable to mnke liim drink.—T am. etc:, AN OLD .PHYSICIAN. Wellington, 2Dth .Tune, 1916.