THE DOCTORS' UNION

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 309, 23 September 1920, Page 5

THE DOCTORS' UNION

ACTIONS OF THE B.M.A. DISCUSSED

COMMITTEE PROPOSES RIGHT

OF APPEAL

■ The affairs of the British Medical Association were discussed in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. Dr. H. C. Faulke, of Wellington, had petitioned tho House asking: (1) That provision should be made during the present session for tho right of appeal by a medical practitioner to the Supremo Court against the decisions of tho British Medical Association, New Zealand branch; and (2) that legislation enotild bo introduced making illegal tho boycotting of a medical practitioner who was not a member of the association, but who was on the medical roll, by the members of the asociation. The A to L Petitions Committee recommended the first clause of this petition for the favourable consideration of tha Government The chairman of the committee (Mr. Wright) said that Dr. Faulko had been a member of the association. There had been some difference of opinion between Dr. Faulke and tha association, and he had been charged by the executive of the association with unprofessional oonduct. Ho had denied that charge, and eventually was expolled from tho association. AJter he had been expelled 'he was ostracised. Other doctors would .not work with him, except in extreme cases, where life, and death were involved. The doctor was asking now that in his case and similar cases the medical practitioner who was expelled from the association should have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. There was no right of appeal at present, oiving to the fact that the British Medical Association was an unregistered body, and therefore could not be proceeded against at law. If the association were registered, aggrieved persons would be able to appeal to the Courts. The committee had been informed that in Britain the rijfht of appeal in suoh cases existed. The petition, added Mr. Wright, involved tho status of certain doctors who had been imported from Britain by the .friendly societies. These doctors verc doing the work of the societies, and they had been placed under the ban by the Medical Association. They would have a right of appeal under the recommendation of the committee. The members of . the committee had not considered it necessary to deal with the second part of the petition, since a remedy would be provided if the right of appeal to the Supreme Court existed. Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata) supported the recommendation of the committee. The British Medical Association, he said, was a close corporation that had not given fair treatment to fully-qualified doctors outside the organisation. P. N. Barfcram (Grey Lynn), told the House that from a unionist's point of view he had to oongratulate the members of the association on their exhibition of "class consciousness and union solidarity." The /committee had been told that the doctors imported by the friendly societies were really "scabbing" on the doctors' union. The evidence had shown that the Medical Association was trying to induce these doctors to break their agreements. Dr. Gibbs had told the committes that if contracts were made without full knowledge of tho facts, repudiation of the contracts was justifiable. Members of the House would recall that when a Labour leader said: with agreements," very loud protests wero made. llr, Wright: Dr. Gibbs scarcely went as Jar as that. Mr. Bartram: I think he did. Mr. _P. Fraser (Wellington Central) said that tho Medical Association was a ljnipn Bint had gone rurther than other 'imcms Tn the protection of its members. It claimed the right to expel and bovcott memßera, and these members ought to have tho same right that-other workers fyad to appeal to the Courts if an injustice had Twen done. The B.M.A; had made certain definitions of "ethical conduct." Iv had discussed a proposal that a member should be deemed to bo guilty of unethical conduct if ho appeaHed in a civil Court as a witness "in conjunction with a member of the medical profession wlfom the association considers it unethical to meet professionally." Mr. 37 S. Dickson (Parnell) told tho House that in Auckland the organised doctors had threatened to withdraw their cases from maternity homes if doctors outside tho B.M.A. were all Wed to attend patients in the same homes. The uiefprs had given an example of the "one big union." The committee's recommendation was