Medical legislation.

  • Simon, Sir John, 1816-1904.
Date:
[1856]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Medical legislation. 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.

    1/16
    / O MEDICAL LECISLA TION. 3 THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. iere is now before Parliament, is now Deioru mriinuicim, to be at the next morning sitting of the House ms, a bill which purports to be for the ;he laws relating to the medical profession, r is of so much public importance as to i3ideration in your columns, especially as un's bill has hitherto attracted no general and its principles (such a3 they are) 3 with a new and objectionable style of ttion. e important professed objects of the bill, ledical reform bills introduced for the last are the following:—1. That within the ..gdom the licences and diplomas granted mthorized bodies shall be of universal lot, as now', restricted to particular towns ar counties. 2. That bodies incompetent irpose shall not continue to give licences l or surgical practice, and that bodies re- s privilege shall conform their tests to a .iuidard of qualification, so that one such may not underbid another, to the harm of , by selling its licence to unqualified per- That a register shall be kept of legally iractitioners, so that, for both public and il protection, they may easily be distin- )m false pretenders to medical education. •e excellent objects, wliich Mr. Headlam ) attain by very exceptional means. After ig from the British universities, from the , ies’ Company, and, I presume, from the ) of Canterbury their present respective .ving licences to practice ; and after pro- the Corporations of Physicians and Sur- ingland, Scotland, and Ireland shall alone at privilege, he would institute a Medical j the 3ole and irresponsible depositary of or the purposes of the bill, giving it ab- lority to regulate all educational tests and .ts for diplomas of admission to the medical ; giving it entire control over all channels hioh the British empire can receive a war- ply of skilled labour, indispensable for private service. y for the present all reflection on other le bill, I beg to offer some criticisms on ■ am’s conception of the council to which ions may be intrusted, jwever, let me observe that the proposal il of Medical Education is in itself not iversally it ha3 been felt that, whenever | lessary changes should lie made in the laws • the medical profession, the new system in as a difficult matter of administration, require that competent persons, deserving fidence, should give it their strict atten- rrefore, as long as medical reform has been evcTy project has tended to the establish- council ; which (whether finally respon- t) should at least constitute the immediate that new administration which the reform ugnrate. Different reformers have planned unctions for such a council; but all have nd in this view Mr. Headlam’s bill con- uit the entire system of medical education, the condnet of all licensing corporations, cctly of all medical schools, should bo its supervision and control, unctions, especially in relation to public duties, the council would require to be of peculiar material. To decide on the efficiency of schools and examining boards, disregarding their rivalries and jealousies; to regulate medical education ; to ap- preciate the scientific progress of the time, so as to maintain the highest practicable standard of re- quirements for a professional licence—these W’ould be tasks both difficult and delicate. They would involve knowledge, and more than knowledge. For a proper discharge they must be intrusted to the very best men in the profession—to men of high education, large minded, delibex-ative, just, and not only incorruptible but unprejudiced. The worst thing that could befall such a council, with its judicial functions, would be that its members should consider themselves as delegates, pledged to the in- terests of particular institutions, or to the views of particular sections in the profession. This, however, is the very thing aimed at in Mr. Headlam’s bill. His proposed council is to consist of 24 members, of whom 16 are to be delegated by the several corporations interested in medical mat- ters, and eight to be elected by universal profes- sional suffrage. Of the 24 members thus to be appointed, nine are to be representatives for Scot- land, nine for England, and six for Ireland. There are obvious objections to the details of this proposal :—First, in the absurdly disproportionate allotment of representatives to the three divisions of the kingdom. Secondly, in the improbability of obtaining effective co-operation in so numerous a council, with the majority of members likely to reside at least a day’s journey from the place of meeting. Thirdly, in the certainty that, while the foremost men in Scotland and Ireland could, of course, only be induced by a sense of public duty to make the sacrifice of convenience and income necessary for such distant attendances, the office of councillor would be of sufficient Mat—perhaps eveu of sufficient emolument—to excite eager competition among men who could bring with them no accession of strength or of public confidence ; and, as regards the eight popular members, to be nominated every three years by written and postable voting-papers*, the Edinburgh College of Surgeons forms a very moderate estimate of the consequences of such a system—remonstrating against it that “ it will pro- bably give rise to canvassing, intriguing, and strife, and thereby tend rather to cause disunion than to promote the best interests of the profession and the comfort of its members.” The greater wisdom is not always in the greater number, nor the tenderest conscience in those most solicitous for place. Can- didates would be dangerously tempted to bid one against the other, and to flatter the wildest desires of their constituency by promising all sorts of impossible things against druggists, and homojo- patlxs, and corn-cutters, and boards of guardians. But those are, comparatively speaking, faults of detail. The one insuperable objection is in prin- ciple. The clauses of Mr. Headlam’s bill which regard this subject imply an entire and radical error as to the proper object and meaning of such a council as is proposed. He plans it3 construction as if the primary object were to guard certain internal interests of the profession ; as if, for instance, some common property had to be administered—some property vested jointly in medical corporations and practitioners, over the application of which they all might rightfully claim to watch—interest against interest—so that none shoidd steal an unfair ad- vantage from the trust. Under this strango mis- vevlooked by Mr . P ^ - ! apprehension, it is overlooked by Mr. Headlam that, ve often been suggested for such a body as at least equally with the profession, the public has cation; but, without referring to them, ’ a claim to no heard. Greatly, no doubt, it would oon- duco to the rightly-understood interests of the pro- ig only within the narrower limit of their