The Attorney-General spoke with absolute confidence in the honesty and fair spirit by which the Medical Registration Ordinance would be actuated in dealing with the claims of those who may come before it. The next question he addressed was regarding the exemption from the operation of this Ordinance of persons who may be practising at the present time in the colony and have established certain interests and rights, but who may not be able to register themselves under the provisions of this Ordinance.
There may be three or four such persons, and though the number is small, if there is one who may be unfairly or unjustly affected by the operation of the Bill, it would be a great misfortune. Therefore, they proposed to amend the Ordinance in certain particulars to adjust nicely their claims under the Ordinance. It has been alleged on behalf of Dr. Fisher, who appears to be in that position, that it is unjust he should be debarred from continuing to practice.
However expedient it may be to the public interest or to the interest of the medical profession that none but duly qualified medical practitioners should be allowed to practice, yet having been established in a certain position, Dr. Fisher ought not to be dealt with so harshly as to be obliged to leave the place. The justice of that was to some extent recognised by the Ordinance as it now stands, and a proviso was made that persons in that position who notified their position to the Colonial Secretary should be allowed to practise, and continue practising notwithstanding the Ordinance.
The Attorney-General admitted that the provision coming in after that was not calculated probably to do the fullest justice to persons in Dr. Fisher's case. He thought it reasonable that if a man is allowed to continue to practise upon his conforming to certain conditions, it is just and reasonable to provide that he shall have the ordinary facilities that attach to the right of pursuing a profession for gain.
Therefore, it is proposed to amend the present provisions as to persons in Dr. Fisher's position to this extent, that not only will they be allowed to practise professionally, but they will be allowed to claim and recover their fees in the ordinary course of law. It has been suggested that they ought to go a step further and make an exception to the provision which enacts that in all cases where by any Ordinance or Act a medical certificate or the testimony of a duly qualified medical practitioner is required, none but duly qualified medical practitioners can supply it.
The amended provision to be submitted to the Council is based upon the view that there is a great distinction of principle between making a concession of that kind and making such a concession as that which has been mentioned. It is admitted by everyone that the Government have a right to lay down the terms upon which they will permit persons to render services to them.
It is no interference with private interests for the state or community to say that where they require certain things to be done, they will insist upon their being done by persons who possess certain qualifications. It cannot be said that they in any way interfere with the vested rights or interests of anyone if they lay down that in cases where they require a medical certificate to be furnished, or the testimony of a medical practitioner, there they will insist that none but duly qualified medical men shall be allowed.
The Attorney-General submitted that there is a great difference between allowing a man to recover his fees for his services and placing him upon the same footing as qualified medical practitioners for the purpose of rendering such services. While it is fair to give the one, it is equally just to withhold the other. Therefore, it is not proposed in this Ordinance to make any amendment which will enable Dr. Fisher, or any gentleman in his position, if they do not register, to furnish the certificates required by law to be furnished by qualified medical practitioners.
The Council then went into committee on the Bill, and amendments to the effect explained by the Attorney-General were introduced. Hon. P. Ryrie objected to clause 9, which provides that where a medical certificate is required by any Act or Ordinance, the certificate of a person unregistered under the Act shall be void.
He said it might happen that a Chinese or Portuguese summoned as a juror or as a witness in a case might be unwell and require a certificate to that effect. If he were being attended by a Chinese or unregistered doctor, it would come to this, that he would have to go to a registered doctor and ask for a certificate, for which he would have to pay a considerable fee.
The Chief Justice said it was only in suspicious cases that a medical certificate was required before burial could take place. In the case of illness of jurors or witnesses, no certificate was required by law. A certificate was usual because it was the best form of evidence, but supposing a person sent to say he could not attend on account of illness, a policeman or any other person might be sent to make inquiries.
Hon. P. Ryrie moved that the clause be struck out of the Bill. He was opposed to the Bill entirely, but with reference to this particular clause, if they admitted that persons who had been practising there without qualifications had acquired vested rights, he did not see why they should go halfway only.
The Attorney-General was asked to respond, and he stated that if he knew precisely the nature of Hon. P. Ryrie's objection, he would be in a better position to answer.
Page 591
2