The Waikato Times THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1939 “DUTIES OF PATIENTS”

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20819, 1 June 1939, Page 8

The Waikato Times THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1939 “DUTIES OF PATIENTS”

‘-Duties of Patients'’ tabulated by the Health Dcpa rtment as rules to be followed by those availing themselves of the maternity benefits of the Social Security Act indicate how complicated the relations of patients and doctors will become. The department recognises the possibility of neurotic patients imposing an unfair burden on medical practitioners and has therefore set out a code of conduct which, if followed closely, should reli eve the doctor of the danger of expending an undue amount of time and energy in attending to his patient for the fixed payment provided. It is a matter for speculation how closely a,sick woman will care to follow these instructions, and how often a conscientious patient will refrain from calling a doctor when in the interests of her health she should make a call.

“Duties” imposed on the patients include an instruction that she is not to make any unreasonable demands upon a doctor's professional services. In particular, with the exception of a case of emergency, she is instructed that she is not to summon the doctor to visit her between G p.m. on any day and 8 a.m. the following day. Nor is she, again with the same provision for an emergency, to ask him to visit her on any Saturday afternoon, nor on any Sunday or public holiday. Presumably, if any of these rules are broken the patient will tind it necessary to pay for medical attention, but one difficulty will be found in proving that the call should not have been made. It will be difficult to decide what in the mind of a distressed patient, or in the real interests of her health, should be accepted as an “emergency.” In any case, the necessity of conforming to so many regulations at a time when mental stress is undesirable, will in many cases be thought not worth while and the doctor will simply he summoned whenever there is a doubt.

The instructions to patients state that if any woman “wilfully and unreasonably fails to comply with any of the obligations imposed upon her by the list of duties, there may, at the suit of the medical officer of health, be recovered from her, or from any person liable for her debts, an amount, not exceeding the amount paid out of the social security fund in respect of any maternity benefits provided for her.” That should be an effective deterrent to any wilful disregard of the duty to be as “reasonable towards the doctor as possible,” but it might also deter the patient from calling the doctor when health demands that he should he called. It is liable to become very confusing to women whose minds should be free from such worries.

In the meantime the deadlock between the Government and the medical profession continues with no solution in sight, but nevertheless the taxpayers are contributing towards a fund from which they are gaining no benefit. If the present position continues much longer Mr Nash may not have to provide for the deficiency of £2,000,000 previously expected in the social security funds in the first year of operation. The Government has informed the doctors that in the absence of co-operation it will inaugurate a State medical service. Since it will require a considerable time to launch such a scheme, even if it is possible at all, will the Government in the meantime relieve the people of New Zealand from the payment of at least a Dortion of the social security tax ? No justification for any other course is in sight. ____________