97

own experience. I have written from the standpoint- of my own experience, but have reason to believe thatsurgeons are victimized at least as frequently as arephysicians 1 Obviously the practice is one that canhardly be suppressed by individual action. An

analogous situation occurs sometimes, when the

employers, the friends or the relatives of a panelpatient ask the panel doctor to meet a specialistin consultation. The panel doctor does not desireto absent himself from the consultant’s visit, butmay spend time without hope of fee. He sometimes.asks the consultant-who is paid by the employers-to " do something for " him in the matter. I have,in such a case, suggested that a fee should be paiddirectly in a complimentary way by the employers.But I was once asked by the panel doctor to add 22 2s.to my

" account " for his sake !I may perhaps say, in conclusion, that in my view

the General Medical Council might well make a

pronouncement to the effect that payments should.always be made directly to the consultant and notthrough any intermediary, or that the amount of thefee should be stated by the consultant to the personresponsible for the fee. It seems to me, however, thatpanel practitioners have a real grievance in notTeceiving the proper fee for being present at a consulta-tion desired by the employers. This does not excuse anunderhand method of obtaining a fee, though theexistence of this real grievance has thus become- apparent to me.

Let us hope that the publicity given to my experi-ences, which I know are shared by certain of mycolleagues, will put an end to such practices.

I am, Sir, yours faithfully.NEMO.June 23rd, 1928.

** * This letter reveals the existence of what isrightly styled an obnoxious practice. It is one thatshould receive immediate attention. Whether theGeneral Medical Council would consider it any partof its duties or responsibilities to issue such a pro-nouncement as is sought, even in the form of a warningnote, seems doubtful. The disciplinary powers of theCouncil would have to be set in action against thosewho disobeyed the pronouncement, or the Councilwould be stultified, and those powers can only be- exercised if unimpeachable evidence were forthcoming.Publicity anyhow must act as a deterrent, opening theeyes of the public to a trick by which both they and asection of the medical profession may be victimised,although we hope that Nemo’s experience is not acommon one. If it is a fact that no provision can bemade for the payment of panel doctors attending aconsultation, the position should be altered.-ED. L.

"THE GREAT PROBLEM AND THE EVIDENCEFOR ITS SOLUTION."

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SiR,—I was sorry to see in the honoured columns of

’THE LANCET a review which treated with contemptthe recent book of Dr. Lindsay Johnson, " The-Great Problem," in which he discusses spiritualism.Lindsay Johnson is a very highly qualified man andhis views are shared by the vast majority of thosewho have actually investigated the subject. Theopinion of those who have not is worth less. A century-ago the medical profession stultified itself by itsridicule of mesmerism which it now uses as a powerfulally. It is sad to see it placing itself in the samefalse position towards spiritualism, for history willmost certainly repeat itself.As to the quality of the advertisements in psychic

papers I agree with the reviewer that they might beimproved, but is it reasonable to judge a vastsubject not by the writings of a Lodge, a Crookes,a Wallace, a Richet, or a Flammarion, but by the

I- advertisements in a few small papers ?I am, Sir, yours faithfully,

ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE, M.D. Edin.Buckingham Palace Mansions, S.’V.,

July 9th, 1928.

" IN AN INTERVIEW."

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SiR,-Extracts from a paper by me on tuber-

culosis have been published by a newspaper and Ishould explain that no information of any sort wasgiven by me, and that the extracts are based uponan advance copy of the British Journal of Tuber-culosis obtained from the publishers. The account ofthe boxer was, I understand, obtained by the paperin the usual routine of news collecting ; it certainlydid not emanate from me. My real object in writingis to draw attention to the fact that another news-paper stated that I said " in an interview " that thetreatment was still on its trial, or words to thateffect. The " interview " actually consisted of askingme over the ’phone for an interview, and my replythat I could not possibly grant it, and that every-thing I had to say I had said in the British Journalof Tuberculosis.

T am. Sir. vours faithfn1lv.C. E. JENKINS.Manchester, July 10th, 1928.

THE TALE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH.

AN annotation published in our issue of June 30thunder this heading has brought a communication fromMr. S. C. Turner, the Chairman of the Antivivisection(Battersea General) Hospital, protesting that state-ments made at the annual meeting of the ResearchDefence Society were misleading. Mr. Turner referschiefly to the public announcement of Mr. Peart who,he says, remained surgeon to the hospital for four.years after the situation was clear, while he hadceased to be honorary surgeon for two years when hemade his announcement. Our words contained nothingto the contrary, and it is difficult to say why Mr. Peartshould not be allowed to choose his own date forpublicity, or to see in what way his period of silencehas damaged the hospital.

UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREwS.-The Macewenprize in surgery has been awarded to Mr. Thomas LawsonMcEwan, who is a graduate in medicine and in science ofthe University.

HOSPITALS AND THE MIDDLE CLASSES.-It is under-stood that the Pay Bed Committee of King Edward’sHospital Fund for London, appointed last year, will shortlyissue its report on hospital accommodation for the profes-sional and middle classes. The committee suffered a seriousloss in the death of its chairman, Lord Hambleden, who,owing to his last illness, was unable to attend the deliber-ative meetings, though he had presided at the meetingswhen evidence was taken. The committee has devotedspecial attention to the question of voluntary insuranceschemes.

BRITISH HUMANE ASSOCIATION’S LONDON CLINIC.-The officers of this clinic in Ranelagh-road, S.W., enter-tained several hundred medical visitors at a demonstrationof therapeutic methods on the evening of July 10th. Theinstitution was opened early this year by the British HumaneAssociation ; it succeeded the clinic in Tufton-street, andis one of the largest physiotherapeutic establishments inthe world, its capacity being over a thousand patients a day.The ground floor houses offices and the saline and aromaticinhalation rooms, where patients with bronchial and pul-monary affections may breathe medicated air. On thefirst floor are the electrical and diathermy wards and alarge tungsten-arc room. Almost the whole of the secondfloor is occupied by the mercury-vapour ward, and thewhole clinic is elaborately equipped. The visitors saw theapparatus at work, and at a meeting over which Sir BruceBruce-Porter presided they listened to papers by Dr. HowardHumphris, who spoke on heliotherapy in general, byDr. R. Deck, who gave an account of some unusual casesin tungsten-arc practice, and by Dr. Courtenay Mason, whoexplained the technique of inhalation treatment. Thesituation of the clinic is excellent, for it has a large poorpopulation at its doors, and is accessible to south as wellas to north London. Patients pay what they can afford,and it is stated that half of them make no payment. Theclinic is maintained, as it was founded and equipped, at theexpense of Mr. Campbell Johnston.