Medical reform.

  • Young, John.
Date:
[1873]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Medical reform. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    1/12
    278 A new Medical Act (1858) Amend- ment Bill has been brought into the House of Commons this Session, in which the defects of previous Bills are repeated, and some new ones appear for the first time. The number of the nineteen bodies which in this country possess the power of licensing medical practitioners, the inequality of their examinations, and the difference in value of the degree or diploma they grant,—these are absurdities of which everyone is conscious. But they are absurdities legalized by Act of Parlia- ment ; they existed before the Medi- cal Act of 1858 was passed, and the situation is in no way so altered as to justify the vehemence with which the small reform now in contemplation is urged on the profession. That scheme is a trifling modification of the arrange- ments determined in 1858 ; and unless it can be shown that the last fourteen years have witnessed the development of serious evils, it is too soon to disturb the country with any partial legislation. The reluctance of the public to in- terest themselves in medical politics is I intelligible; the profession is not emi- nently practical, and is far too apt to overburden its plans with details. Especially was this the case last year; for our ruling body, the General Medi- cal Council, seemed to think the mil- I lennium has arrived, and the licensing I bodies were determined to dispel the I illusion by agreeing, each on its own I scheme of details, without allowing any question of general principle to disturb its thoughts. But the time has come for the con- sideration of this question, Is the govern- ment of the medical profession to be left to itself as heretofore ? Is this self-governing body to have the sole right of certifying those men who are to practise among the people ? Hay, more, is this power to be exercised by nineteen practically independent, self-governing, bodies, even under the restraint of voluntary combination in three groups 1 The Bill of the present Session proposes to add to the General Medical Council six representatives elected by the pro- fession at large ; but this simply con- tinues medical self-government, and adds sundry chances of error. The present agitation has been promoted on the ground that the public require better security for the fitness of medical licentiates to practise, and it is proposed to give this security by combining the self-governing bodies into three boards, each member of which has thereby less responsibility, while there is no imperial control over the conjoint boards. What I wish to appeal to the public is this, that if it is necessary to guaran- tee the public safety, it is the business of the State to undertake the task. State intervention has been agitated be- fore now: but, 1st, it involves inter- ference with use and wont, and, 2nd, with vested interests; 3rd, it is centrali- zation; 4th and lastly, it is German. I do not despair, even with these four formidable war-cries certain to be raised on every side, of seeing State interven- tion yet adopted in this country. But it is first necessary that the public should realize the fact that it is neither statesmanlike nor prudent to rest its safety on the mutual supervision exer- cised by antagonistic bodies. The nineteen licensing bodies are :— I. In England :— University of Oxford. ,, Cambridge. ,, Durham. ,, London. Royal College of Physicians. ,, Surgeons. Apothecaries’ Company.