- Email: [email protected]
A MEDICAL TRADE UNION.
105 form of organisation which trade unions alone enjoy. There sentimental objections which one recognises as honest and widely held, but not by those who are attacked by trade unions in their own practices. May I be permitted to mention that there is a National Medical Trade Union with offices at 34, Villiers-street, London, W.C., which has already branches in many parts of the kingdom, and which is quite ready to undertake the organisation of branches in parts not at present covered by its operations. Should any of those who have been interviewed by your Commissioner see this, it might be worth their while to communicate with the address given. I am, Sir, yours faithfully,
Raynaud,3 and of Boinet! are very interesting in this direction and afford valuable information. I am. Sir. vours faithfullv. W. BROUGHTON-ALCOCK. Institut Pasteur, Paris, July 7th, 1913.
are
THE HONORARY STAFF OF THE MOUNT VERNON HOSPITAL AND THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT. To the Editor of THE LANCET.
SIR,-As chairman of the medical board
of the Mount Vernon Hospital for Consumption and Diseases of the Chest I am desired by the board to forward to you the enclosed letter with a request that you will be kind enough to publish the same in this week’s LANCET. I am, Sir, yours faithfully, F. W. TUNNICLIFFE. Harley-street, W., July 9th, 1913.
GORDON R. WARD. 2, Perham-crescent, West Kensington, W., July 8th, 1913.
MEDICAL PRACTICE UNDER THE INSURANCE ACT. OUR SPECIAL COMMISSIONER.) (BY
[ENCLOSURE.]] To the Committee of Managevient of the Mount Vernon Hospital.
(Continued from p.47.)
GENTLEMEN,the undersigned, members of the honorary medical staff of the Mount Vernon Hospital, greatly regret that we feel it our duty to protest strongly against the attitude which for the past few months the committee of management has adopted in reference to the medical board, and its
We,
XV.-LIVERPOOL: THE STAND MADE AGAINST THE ACT. UP to January, 1913, nearly all the practitioners in Liverpool at least professed their eagerness to fight the Act. At first only 14 went on the panel out of 577. This obviously recommendations. would not suffice for a population that must soon amount The recent summary dismissal of two physicians from their to some 800,000 persons. The provisional committee formed appointments at Northwood is not only in direct oppositionin 1912 by the British Medical Association held many to the recommendation of the medical board, but, as we are meetings to protest against the Act, and displayed generally advised, is illegal and ultra t’ires.a: good deal of activity. Only about 30 practitioners appeared Another objectionable feature of the conduct of the to have hesitation, or admitted that they were uncertain as mittee of management towards the medical board was theto whether or not they would go on the panel. It was refusal of the former to accede to the request of the medical calculated aside certain retired ship surgeons, that, setting board of May 6th, 1913, to hold a joint conference, at whichsome medical men practising dentistry, and a certain qualified it was the intention of the board to put the above and othernumber of official medical men, there were more than 500 questions before the committee of management in an practitioners who might go on the panel, yet of these only amicable and in no sense contentious spirit, feeling as they35 had failed to sign the pledge not to serve. When the did that their correct solution was vital to the interests terms were offered resistance did not at once disimproved the hospital. A meeting of the profession was held, and at this In conclusion, we, the undersigned, as a protest againstappear. only 12 practitioners present voted in favour of gathering the illegality and injustice of the recent actions of But such a decision did not the better offer. accepting the committee of management, beg to give notice of mean very much, for at least half the local members of the our intentions to resign our position as honorary medical Another meeting were absent from the meeting. i profession officers to the hospital on July 20th next, but was convoked in Hope Hall to dispel uncertainty as to the out prejudice to any steps we may subsequently and every practitioner in Liverpool was urged to be advised to take, especially with regard to thesituation, attend. Once again only half the members of the profession institution of an inquiry into the management of the hos-were present. Yet this meeting was held at a critical time, pital. We take this course with the profoundest regret,1that is, just a week before the date when the medical service inasmuch as it involves the severance of our connexion with i under the Act came into force. Even at this late hour an institution the interests of which we have had deeply at , 236 votes were recorded against working the Act and only heart and to which some, indeed many, of us have given a5 in its favour. But simultaneously in London the British no inconsiderable portion of the best part of our proMedical Association had decided to hold a meeting in a fessional lives. (Signed) fortnight’s time to consider whether the members of the HERMANN WEBER. A. J. WHITING. should be relieved from their pledge not to accept profession CLIFFORD ALLBUTT. JAMES BERRY. service under the Act. This caused a panic in Liverpool. WATSON CHEYNE. H. J. SCHARLIEB. What was the good of holding out and losing their opporF. W. TUNNICLIFFE. C. HARRISON ORTON. tunities on the panel if, a fortnight later, they were to be ARTHUR LATHAM. ARNOLD GABRIEL. relieved from their pledge ? Then, a day or two later, a F. W. PRICE. E. D. D. DAVIS. threat was published that there would be sent down to June 20th, 1913. a number of part-time practitioners who Liverpool To the Editor of THE LANCET. would have given to them the right to practise among SIR,-It may not be out of place for me to state that it is the wives and families of insured persons at stated rates. owing to my wish to be associated with the resigning This broke down the resistance to the Act. Meetings members of the consulting and visiting staffs that I am also were held in all parts of the town, and on each occasion resigning my appointment at Mount Vernon Hospital, reports were received that the number of practitioners I am, Sir, yours faithfully, Hampstead. yielding was increasing daily. Thereupon the Liverpool J. W. LINNELL, Provisional Committee decided, by the somewhat narrow Mount Vernon Hospital, Hampstead, Medical Superintendent. July 9th, 1913. majority of 15 to 12, to adopt the resolution that had already been carried in the Surrey county-i.e., that they could no longer condemn their professional brethren who, A MEDICAL TRADE UNION. under dire financial stress, proposed to go on the panel. To the Editor of THE LANCET. Two members of the Liverpool ComNor was this all. in the excellent reports of your Special mittee on their own responsibility sent out a postcard signed note SIR,-I Commissioner thatthe demand for a trade union seems to be with their initials making the above decision of the Provery frequently touched upon. It is hardly a matter for visional Committee known to those practitioners who were wonder that those who have to deal with trade unions realise specially interested in the matter. This postcard was that they can only be met with their own weapons-not received on a Sunday morning ; and the resolution that had violence, which is no legal part of any trade union, but that been carried was printed in the papers that were published The card, therefore, did not on the Monday morning. : Société rle Biologie, Feb. 22nd, 1913. 4 Ibid.. April 8th, 1913. precede the public announcement by many hours, but none
com-
of
£
with-
legally
Raynaud,3 and of Boinet! are very interesting in this direction and afford valuable information. I am. Sir. vours faithfullv. W. BROUGHTON-ALCOCK. Institut Pasteur, Paris, July 7th, 1913.
are
THE HONORARY STAFF OF THE MOUNT VERNON HOSPITAL AND THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT. To the Editor of THE LANCET.
SIR,-As chairman of the medical board
of the Mount Vernon Hospital for Consumption and Diseases of the Chest I am desired by the board to forward to you the enclosed letter with a request that you will be kind enough to publish the same in this week’s LANCET. I am, Sir, yours faithfully, F. W. TUNNICLIFFE. Harley-street, W., July 9th, 1913.
GORDON R. WARD. 2, Perham-crescent, West Kensington, W., July 8th, 1913.
MEDICAL PRACTICE UNDER THE INSURANCE ACT. OUR SPECIAL COMMISSIONER.) (BY
[ENCLOSURE.]] To the Committee of Managevient of the Mount Vernon Hospital.
(Continued from p.47.)
GENTLEMEN,the undersigned, members of the honorary medical staff of the Mount Vernon Hospital, greatly regret that we feel it our duty to protest strongly against the attitude which for the past few months the committee of management has adopted in reference to the medical board, and its
We,
XV.-LIVERPOOL: THE STAND MADE AGAINST THE ACT. UP to January, 1913, nearly all the practitioners in Liverpool at least professed their eagerness to fight the Act. At first only 14 went on the panel out of 577. This obviously recommendations. would not suffice for a population that must soon amount The recent summary dismissal of two physicians from their to some 800,000 persons. The provisional committee formed appointments at Northwood is not only in direct oppositionin 1912 by the British Medical Association held many to the recommendation of the medical board, but, as we are meetings to protest against the Act, and displayed generally advised, is illegal and ultra t’ires.a: good deal of activity. Only about 30 practitioners appeared Another objectionable feature of the conduct of the to have hesitation, or admitted that they were uncertain as mittee of management towards the medical board was theto whether or not they would go on the panel. It was refusal of the former to accede to the request of the medical calculated aside certain retired ship surgeons, that, setting board of May 6th, 1913, to hold a joint conference, at whichsome medical men practising dentistry, and a certain qualified it was the intention of the board to put the above and othernumber of official medical men, there were more than 500 questions before the committee of management in an practitioners who might go on the panel, yet of these only amicable and in no sense contentious spirit, feeling as they35 had failed to sign the pledge not to serve. When the did that their correct solution was vital to the interests terms were offered resistance did not at once disimproved the hospital. A meeting of the profession was held, and at this In conclusion, we, the undersigned, as a protest againstappear. only 12 practitioners present voted in favour of gathering the illegality and injustice of the recent actions of But such a decision did not the better offer. accepting the committee of management, beg to give notice of mean very much, for at least half the local members of the our intentions to resign our position as honorary medical Another meeting were absent from the meeting. i profession officers to the hospital on July 20th next, but was convoked in Hope Hall to dispel uncertainty as to the out prejudice to any steps we may subsequently and every practitioner in Liverpool was urged to be advised to take, especially with regard to thesituation, attend. Once again only half the members of the profession institution of an inquiry into the management of the hos-were present. Yet this meeting was held at a critical time, pital. We take this course with the profoundest regret,1that is, just a week before the date when the medical service inasmuch as it involves the severance of our connexion with i under the Act came into force. Even at this late hour an institution the interests of which we have had deeply at , 236 votes were recorded against working the Act and only heart and to which some, indeed many, of us have given a5 in its favour. But simultaneously in London the British no inconsiderable portion of the best part of our proMedical Association had decided to hold a meeting in a fessional lives. (Signed) fortnight’s time to consider whether the members of the HERMANN WEBER. A. J. WHITING. should be relieved from their pledge not to accept profession CLIFFORD ALLBUTT. JAMES BERRY. service under the Act. This caused a panic in Liverpool. WATSON CHEYNE. H. J. SCHARLIEB. What was the good of holding out and losing their opporF. W. TUNNICLIFFE. C. HARRISON ORTON. tunities on the panel if, a fortnight later, they were to be ARTHUR LATHAM. ARNOLD GABRIEL. relieved from their pledge ? Then, a day or two later, a F. W. PRICE. E. D. D. DAVIS. threat was published that there would be sent down to June 20th, 1913. a number of part-time practitioners who Liverpool To the Editor of THE LANCET. would have given to them the right to practise among SIR,-It may not be out of place for me to state that it is the wives and families of insured persons at stated rates. owing to my wish to be associated with the resigning This broke down the resistance to the Act. Meetings members of the consulting and visiting staffs that I am also were held in all parts of the town, and on each occasion resigning my appointment at Mount Vernon Hospital, reports were received that the number of practitioners I am, Sir, yours faithfully, Hampstead. yielding was increasing daily. Thereupon the Liverpool J. W. LINNELL, Provisional Committee decided, by the somewhat narrow Mount Vernon Hospital, Hampstead, Medical Superintendent. July 9th, 1913. majority of 15 to 12, to adopt the resolution that had already been carried in the Surrey county-i.e., that they could no longer condemn their professional brethren who, A MEDICAL TRADE UNION. under dire financial stress, proposed to go on the panel. To the Editor of THE LANCET. Two members of the Liverpool ComNor was this all. in the excellent reports of your Special mittee on their own responsibility sent out a postcard signed note SIR,-I Commissioner thatthe demand for a trade union seems to be with their initials making the above decision of the Provery frequently touched upon. It is hardly a matter for visional Committee known to those practitioners who were wonder that those who have to deal with trade unions realise specially interested in the matter. This postcard was that they can only be met with their own weapons-not received on a Sunday morning ; and the resolution that had violence, which is no legal part of any trade union, but that been carried was printed in the papers that were published The card, therefore, did not on the Monday morning. : Société rle Biologie, Feb. 22nd, 1913. 4 Ibid.. April 8th, 1913. precede the public announcement by many hours, but none
com-
of
£
with-
legally