CITY DOCTORS’ DENIAL

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20055, 29 September 1939, Page 9

CITY DOCTORS’ DENIAL

OBJECTION TO PRACTICE FORMER HOSPITAL CHIEFS WRONG IMPRESSION (Por Press Association.) AUCKLAND, this day. Neither the Auckland division nor the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association has any objection to Dr. C. R. Burns and Mr J. M. Clarke, formerly chiefs of ‘he divisions of medicine and surgery, respectively, at the Auckland Hospital, commencing private practice in Auckland.

The hospital board recently decided to adhere to the clause in the cond 1 - tions of appointment, preventing former directors from prastising in the board’s district fo-r five years

The position was clarified by Dr. F J. Gwynne, president of the Auckland division of the British Medical Association, when a statement by Mr. W. T. Anderton, M.P., in the House of Representatives was referred to him. Mr. Anderton had alleged that the board’s decision had been arrived at on the advice of an advisory committee of doctors, whose financial position would be .affected by the practising of two such highly qualified men.

Request of Waive Clauses

Dr. Gwynne said the medical profession was not interested in the legal rights of including such a clause in the agreements; with the two directors. However, some time ago the Auckland division of the association had made representations to its parent branch in Wellington, informing the authorities of what was happening. Headquarters in Wellington had then written to the hospital board with a request on behalf of the doctors of New Zealand that the private practice clause should be waived in these particular cases. “More recently, the Auckland division of the association was asked if ffiere was any objection in the city to Dr. Burns and Mr. Clarke commencing private practice,” Dr. Gwynne stated. “In reply, the executive unanimously passed a resolution to the effect that there was no objection at all so far as the doctors were concerned.”

Dr. Gwynne added that the recent statements suggested that the profession in Auckland had taken tile opposite view. Members had felt concerned at such direct misrepresentation of the official attitude adopted by the Auckland division and the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association.