DOCTOR AND PATIENT
Sta,—In his unfriendly dig at the medical profession " Janus " makes two assertions which seem to be doubtful. Did "the patients" put this Government in power to introduce a national health service? I thought they did so for the prosecution of the war to the exclusion of such contro- versial matters as this. Does "all the evidence" suggest that patients are not opposed to the present scheme? Many have expressed opposition to me, but feel it is useless to contend against the rising tide of totalitarian- ism. I have before me a letter from a lady who says, "All the people I have asked intensely dislike the idea of regimentation and control. There is no chance for the general public to express their opinion, even at a general election, as the three parties are committed. . . . It Is the medical profession alone who can save us." I fear she exaggerates our influence. Like the clerical and legal professions, we are unpopular because each of us stands as a symbol for something people want to forget. Dr. C. E. M. Joad in a recent article said we had a -vested interest in keeping people rather ill, not very` ill, because we should lose them as patients! To put it at its lowest, a successful cure is the best advertisement a doctor can have. His remedy for inefficiency and slackness in doctors is to pay them a fixed salary Whether they recommend themselves to their patients or not!
But " Janus " misses our real objection—to control by non-medical bodies. Doubtless he regards the freedom of the Press as important as Habeas Corpus. How would he like his Notebook controlled by someone with no experience of journalism?—Yours, &c.,
Previous page
