The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, Saturday Morning. Saturday, August 10, 1889. MEDICAL MONOPOLISTS.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 336, 10 August 1889, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY, Saturday Morning.

Saturday, August 10, 1889. MEDICAL MONOPOLISTS.

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country's, Thy God’s, and truth's.

Many professional men seem to labor under the impression that the people exist for their good and not them for the good of the people. To an extent they must, by reason of their special qualifications, be allowed a monopoly in the line of business which happens to be their own vocation. But an attempt to soar too high may have disastrous results. Certain members of the medical profession have had the impertinence to get introduced into Parliament a Bill which must be condemned by all who are outside of the charmed circle. Summed up the remarks of the Hon. Mr Stevens were•“ It is proposed to introduce a system by which the profession itself shall elect, in the manner prescribed in the Bill, a Medical Council, practically for the purpose of assisting the Registrar to ascertain what are the proper institutions for conferring degrees, and the proper degrees which shall constitute a right to qualify a man for the position of practitioner for the time, and also, from time to time, to generally regulate the affairs of the profession.” Then, again, in explaining one clause he said “ The effect, as I understand it, is this : It will not be competent for any chemist to represent himself as a consulting chemist. It is considered that that is not compatible with the proper standing and proper functions of a chemist and druggist. In all Other respects the positions of chemists and druggists, and of practitioners genially, are left undisturbed.” Now it is all very well to try and stamp out quacks, and for the medical profession to be regulated if it is necessary so to do, but it is quite another thing when it is attempted to foist on the people a cumbrous body composed of only one set of persons. To permit such a monopoly would not only be absurd—it would be very wrong in many respects, and dangerous to the interests of the general public. It, too, is not merely a matter of keeping out impostors J an attempt to extract exorbitant fees is one of the dangers. But the whole Bill is so utterly out of place that it would be waste of time to further discuss its provisions. We will simply conclude by quoting the remarks of an influential journal:—" If this had been a measure to create a trade union it) any other calling in life—say, for Beamed ,qr bricklayers, it would have bgeft hooted Out m the Chamber,“