Doctors and Public
HE publication of books or articles in the lay press, the British Medical AssociatiOn has now decided, 'on medical or semi-medical topics that are of general public interest re- quiring medical knowledge for the proper pre- sentation are recognised as ethically legitimate'; and the authors may now sign their names. This is a wise decision; though why the BMA. took so long to realise the folly of its attempt ta impose anonymity remains unexplained. It did the profession little but harm; for inevitably, the popular papers were tempted to turn to doctors who were unrepresentative of the profession, but . who could be relied upon to produce bright copy. In some notorious cases, the copy used to be written in Fleet Street itself, on the strength of telephone calls to 'Harley Street specialists' who existed only in the reporter's imagination— and on his expense account.
But the BMA is still trying to cling to its old principle that anonymity on principle, if not in practice, should be observed by medical prac- titioners. The reason given is that unscrupulous doctors may otherwise use the press or television to advertise themselves—but if they. do, the General Medical Council retains its disciplinary powers. The real reason is that doctors, like politicians, are alarmed and annoyed by col- leagues who go over their heads to acquire a public reputation.
So the BMA, though forced to retreat, has retired only to a carefully prepared position. The decision to relax the 'old rules is made gently ludicrous by the restrictions with which the new freedom is qualified. In the old days the Hays office had the reputation of laying down exactly how many inches of bosom could de- cently be exposed in any film; and in much the same way, the BMA lays down a number of elaborate petty regulations. A doctor's qualifica- tions may now be published, but they should not be 'unduly emphasised by large or heavy type'; and he should 'avoid undue frequency of contributions to the lay press.' The wealth of niggling detail confirms the belief that the BMA is really more concerned with professional self- esteem than with public need.
Lavish publicity is still to be allowed for doc- tors who attend on royalty, or on the famous: the BMA dare not strike at them; instead, it has to argue that this publicity is 'traditionally ac- cepted as in the public interest and unavoidable.' But it is much more in the public interest that the public should know who is the doctor who is talking to them in some series on television, and what are his qualifications. Yet the BMA, fearful that a handful of doctors may thereby pick up a few extra guineas, still wants to prevent their names from being announced.
If the BMA were really worried about ad- vertising, it would long ago have turned its attention to what has been happening in its own backyard. Magazines have been appearing under the title of 'Family Doctor Specials' which appear to be straight plugs for the industries discussed—bread and sugar, to name two. if any doctor had written such puffs under his own name, he would have risked being struck off the Register. Why, then, should the BMA have spon- sored them?
Previous page
