THE NATION'S HEALTH Sia,—Your correspondent " Toad, M D." makes
a very important point when he says that the health of the community depends far more on its environment—and, I would add, on the quality of its food—than on bottles of medicine and visits. to doctors. This is a point of view which should be given more prominence before the proposed National Health Service (which would be more properly styled a National Sickness Service), involving a vast expenditure of public money and the ruin of private medical practice, is established.
However, the alternative suggestions made by " Toad, M.D.," are, in some respects, amazing. Why should doctors have the help of local B.M.A. offices, partly financed by a Government subsidy (italics are mine) to " arrange holidays . . . . help with clerical work and income-tax returns, and perhaps debt collection and car-servicing "? Many other hard-working men—say, the grocer or the fishmonger—would be equally glad of such help, but would never think of claiming it at the expense of the taxpayer.
In justification of his suggestions your correspondent says that he and his medical brethren would be " thus relieved of drudgery . . . and able to devote their whole time to the clinical work which is their proper function." Might not the grocer and the fishmonger equally claim relief from drudgery in order that they may devote their whole time to serving over the counter, which is their proper function?
The medical profession already enjoys a good many privileges, and it is difficult to see why they should claim all the ha'pence accruing from their job while diverting mails, of the kicks to the taxpayer.—Yours
Previous page
