BRITISH MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Hokitika Guardian, 27 April 1921, Page 1

BRITISH MINISTRY OF HEALTH

question of medical secrecy. LONDON, Marc- 4. As Minister of Health, Dr Addison has shown a degree of activity which has in Ixmdon provided the Northcliffe Press for some time with ample opportunity for criticism. Under the Health Insurance Acts it was recently made compulsory for panel doctors to keep card records of all the illnesses of the insured. This led to a newspaper campaign of protest, for it was maintained that the panel cards t minted the traditional secrecy between doctor and patient, and it was considered that the knowledge made available to the clerks in the Ministry of Health might be used in a dangerous way to the patients themselves. Many doctors protested, but mainly on the ground of unnecessary extra work. The “Lancet” and the “British Medina. Journal” defended the inquisition but the latter admitted that “under any State system there cannot be the absolute secrecy which exists in private practice, hut the Inter-Departmental Committee recommended precautions which if observed, ought to prevent leakage. The risk that some confidential clerk 'Wiployed by thJo medical officers of the Ministry should come across the records of a private acquaintance exists, but it is small, and ought to be sufficiently safeguarded by the obligations of discretion and secrecy which (be Ministry will impose on persons so employed.” This journal also suggested that the newspapers which were fighting against the inquisition were “engaged in a campaign against the Ministry of Health.”

In spite of many protests the card system came into operation, and some light was revealed on its working by Dr Addison yesterday, who replied to a question in the House. Mr Forrest asked the Minister of Health whether he was still receiving any protests from panel doctors as to the work entailed by filling ii]) the new forms of cards. “I cannot accept the view that tlm keeping of records must detract from the time available for giving adequate medical treatment,” said Dr Addison. “In ihe majority of insurance practices the practitioner is responsible for fewer than one-fourth of the number of insured patients for which, in the view of the doctor’s own representatives, an ordinary practitioner can safely assimr responsibility. The number of objections to the record cards from medical men and others concerned in working the system is insignificant. Out of some ioO panel committees representing some 12,000 men on the panel. T have only received protests from nine, and these mostly on points of detail, although every effort has been made to stir up discontent in this matter by certain persons.” A committee appointed by Dr Addison to report on the subject of those “therapeutic substances” which ‘cannot be tested adequately by chemical means’ advises a number of drastic changes which will require an Act of Parliament to carry into effect. The upshot is “supervision and control”— a controlling authority, ail advisory committee, a central Government laboratory. licenses and inspectors. “There is, no doubt, room for improvement in connexion with the testing of certain sera and drugs.” says The “Times.” But we have already the General Medical Council, which is the body responsible for the British Pharmacopoeia ; so far as can be ascertained, that body has performed its duties well, and might if necessity exists

have its powers extended. At least one hears few complaints. To suggest that the sera and vaccines supplied hy the great drug houses or hv such institutions as St Mary’s Hospital will he mueh improved when all these inspeetors and controllers set to work is not reasonable. Every doctor knows that the present products, speaking generally, are reliable and efficient; be knows also that these firms and institutions will do all in their power to meet bis wishes. AVhat advantage, then, we are likely to gain by abandoning the wise and non-interfering policy of the General Medical Council and substituting for it a policy of 'control’ by the Ministry of Health is not evident. At the present moment the scheme appears to be one of reckless extravagance for we are getting on very well without it.”