The Doctors Meet

One out of every ten practicing U.S. physicians laid aside his stethoscope last week, headed for Manhattan and the annual meeting of the A.M.A. There, 19,469 strong, reinforced by 36,378 medical students, nurses, technicians and other medical-minded kibitzers, they packed meetings at which 400 scientific papers were presented, window-shopped through 700 scientific and commercial exhibits. And a group of 196 doctors, members of the house of delegates, decided what face the A.M.A. should show the public, and what stand it should take on social and political issues.

Without visibly mounting blood pressure, the group adopted a new and greatly simplified code of ethics for doctors. Main departure from the old code was in brevity: instead of some 5,000 words, the new code sums up dos and don'ts in a mere 500. Dropped completely are former sections advising doctors on information for the public, patents and copyrights--and punctuality. Main emphasis, unchanged, is on service and integrity: "The principal objective of the medical profession is to render service to humanity with full respect for the dignity of man . . . The medical profession should safeguard the "public and itself against physicians deficient in moral character or professional competence."

On a bread-and-butter issue with ideological overtones, the house of delegates stood pat. Colorado physicians had asked the house to take a strong stand against physicians' working for salaries (paid by hospitals or group-care plans, including some sponsored by labor unions), and letting an administrator fix the patients' fees. With a growing number of doctors (40%, according to some estimates) now on full-or part-time salary, and with the mushrooming of medical-care plans that introduce a "third party" between the insured and his doctor, the irritation in many medical circles has become acute. Proponents of the Colorado plan declared that the corporate practice of medicine was a step toward socialization of medicine. But the house of delegates, confident that its disapproval of corporate practice is already a matter of record, refused to ban it specifically. Principal (though unstated) reason: such a ban would be unenforceable.

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