PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 128, Issue 21367, 11 March 1941, Page 7

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents whose letters are welcome, but for whoso views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear. MUCH BALLOTED VOLUNTEER (To the Editor) Sir,—As my son has been called in the second ballot, I ask if this is fair and just treatment to a boy who volunteers. The same boy enlisted in the Air Force in January, 1940, and was rejected, as there were no vacancies at the time for his particular class. He enlisted again in June for the Army, and while waiting to enter camp was drawn in the first overseas ballot, and when in camp four days was served with a notice to attend for medical examination. He has now been serving four months overseas and is again drawn in the last ballot. I received a notice the day after the ballot was drawn for him to attend for examination on February 19. On March 5 a registered letter was delivered, but I refused to sign and receive it but gave my son’s Army number and destination, so maybe it will mar the sweetness of his next home mail. 1 also received in that same mail the warrant to draw his pay. I am a proud mother and think it a slur on a boy who sacrifices everything and volunteers to serve his country to be classed a conscript twice, and it is a disgrace to those in charge.—l am, etc., A. TURNER. Frankton, March 10. MEDICAL BENEFITS (To the Editor) Sir,—As one who hopes that he will not have need of the services of a doctor, but who unfortunately cannot be sure that will be so—what am 1 to do with regard to the general practitioner benefits under the Social Security Act? Should X sign an application form and present it to one of the doctors and thus aid in the campaign to force the medical men to take up a scheme which they evidently do not like? It seems that the Government is using the public as a lever to force the doctors into the scheme, and I am not sure whether I should be so used. The choice is very difficult for the average man. Fie has been paying for this service for many months and is receiving nothing in return. But the doctors appear to be perfectly sincere in their objection to the scheme on the grounds that it will result in a deterioration in the medical service generally when the doctors become regimented by the State. But what are we to do? Most of us, I think, agree that medical service in New Zealand has been on an exceptionally high plane. In fact it is probably unsurpassed anywhere in the world The doctors are one party to the dispute and the Government is the other. Should we range ourselves on one side or the other and risk the consequences, or should we let well alone and not use the weapon of compulsion? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. Most people will agree with me that the Government made a great mistake in trying to launch the whole Social Security scheme at once. Its first act was to strike the . levy and then to bring in the benefits piecemeal, so that all along the public has been paying for far more than it has received. Would it not nave been better to make sure that the service would be made available before levying the tax? Should not the Government have made an acceptable arrangement with the medical profession before launching its general practitioner scheme at all? As it is, for two years we have been paying for medical service and not receiving it. That is bad business for which the Government will not readily be forgiven. Now it asks the public to assist it in forcing the doctors to do something wnich they believe will be very harmful to the practice of medicine in New Zealand. Again I ask, are we justified in doing this thing?—l am, etc., . PATIENT. Hamilton, March 10.