Trust v. Ethics

At the National Health Conference in Washington, D. C. last fortnight, the American Medical Association bitterly denounced President Roosevelt's suggestion that the Government provide medical care for needy citizens. Scarcely had the conference adjourned when the Government sounded the tocsin for its first pitched battle with the A. M. A. Reason: the A. M. A.'s boycott of the Group Health Association, Inc.

Last year in Washington, 2,500 low-salaried Government employes organized the Group Health Association, Inc., retained seven physicians to provide complete medical care at moderate rates. The A. M. A. immediately denounced this cooperative venture as "unethical," proceeded to use the stratagems of industrial warfare to put the G. H. A. out of business. They 1) threatened to expel G. H. A. doctors from the District Medical Society (local branch of the A. M. A.) ; 2) threatened to expel all physicians who consulted with G. H. A. staff-members; 3) barred G. H. A. doctors from Washington hospitals. Cooperative members protested loudly. Last week they won a decision from the District of Columbia Supreme Court declaring their organization legal.

This week, Assistant Attorney General Thurman Wesley Arnold, in charge of trustbusting, announced that he was bringing the A. M. A. before a grand jury for violation of the Sherman Act. Although there are 60 cooperative health organizations in the U. S., with a total membership of 1,500,000, Trust-Buster Arnold declared that he was not concerned with justifying their method of medical care. "There should be free and fair competition between new forms of organization for medical service and older types of practice. ..." The A. M. A. violated the Sherman Act, Arnold said, because it attempted to prevent "qualified doctors from carrying on their calling, and members of the Group Health Association from selecting physicians of their own choice."

Two examples cited by Attorney Arnold of the A. M. A.'s restraint of trade: A G. H. A. doctor who referred a heart case to a specialist was forbidden to consult personally with the specialist and was forced to communicate with him through the mails. A G. H. A. doctor called to an acute appendicitis case at midnight found all the hospitals in Washington barred to him, was forced to relinquish the operation to another surgeon.

In spite of the fact that he intended to put an end to these illegal practices, Attorney Arnold made it clear that he was not out to fight the A. M. A., that he would drop proceedings if the A. M. A. would stop chivying the cooperatives. Said he: "The department does not take the view that the offences committed are crimes which reflect upon the character or high standing of the persons involved. The analogy to which this proceeding should be compared is that of a prosecution for reckless driving committed by a person of distinction and good-will who is in a hurry to meet his legitimate engagements."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.