I move—

It is almost unnecessary for me to say much in introducing this Bill because in its present form it has already been before the House several times. Last year this Bill was also discussed. In introducing it last year I tried to give the House a full explanation of the principles and main features of the Bill. During the debate on the second reading it appeared that there was considerable misunderstanding on the part of a number of members of this House about the provisions of the Bill. Since that debate, however, a whole year has passed, and members of the House have been able to again study the Bill carefully. In my explanation I shall try to make the principal provisions as clear as possible. I pointed out last year, in introducing the Bill, that it has long been regarded as a necessary measure, that it has been carefully prepared for some time, and that in drafting it the views of all parties interested have been well discussed and considered. I want to point out that the Bill is so urgent that I wish to ask the House not to put off its acceptance any longer, but to put it on the statute book during this season. I pointed out last year the necessity for a consolidated measure for the medical, dental and pharmacy professions in the Union. Even before Union conferences were held in Bloemfontein and Johannesburg, between representatives of the various medical and pharmacy boards then in existence, and when Union came about a Bill was drafted in anticipation to consolidate the existing law in the four provinces entering into the Union. A delegate was then sent to the Government of the day asking for a consolidating measure to be passed as soon as possible. The then Government agreed to it, but up to 1917 nothing was done on account of pressure of business and other causes. In 1907 a Bill similar to this in the main was introduced into the Senate, passed and sent to this House. Up to the present the Bill has not succeeded in passing this House. During the discussion in the Senate, the Bill was sent to a Select Committee. All the clauses were carefully considered and amendments suggested, which subsequently incorporated in the Bill. In 1923 the same Bill passed its second reading in this House and was thereafter referred to a Select Committee. All the clauses were carefully gone into, and the amendments which were proposed have been incorporated in the present Bill. In 1924 consideration of the Bill was resumed at the stage it had reached the previous session, but a motion was then passed to refer the Bill back to a Select Committee to consider the terms of clause 34. There was considerable difference of opinion on the matter. I think we can now rightly say that this Bill has been long considered and prepared with the greatest care by the Select Committees and by members of this House. It has been before three Select Committees and the views of all the medical councils, of the universities and of the professions concerned have been obtained as well as those of the Departments of State interested in the matter. I want to mention a few reasons why I think that the passing of the Bill is so urgent that it ought not to be postponed over this session. From the nature of the case, the medical and dental profession and the pharmacy business, as well as the health services in general, ought to be uniform throughout the whole of the Union. There is nothing inherent which makes it necessary that there should be local statutes in any part of the country. The position today is however, that each province has its own Medical Acts, and that there are no less than sixteen Medical Acts which have to be administered by the Department of Public Health. This causes quite a lot of unnecessary work and waste and unnecessary expense In another respect also uniformity is absolutely necessary. To-day we still have the anomaly that anyone in the pharmacy business can be registered in one province, but is not allowed to practise in another province. A case was brought to my notice where an apothecary, who carried on his business in a capable manner in the Free State, wanted to start business in the Cape Province, but was not able to become registered in the Cape Province. That anomaly ought to be removed. Since the commencement of the Union there have been developments in medical matters with which the existing statutes do not deal. When the acts were drafted before Union, it was impossible to qualify as a doctor in South Africa, but since 1919 we have two South African universities with medical faculties. It goes without saying that there should be a close legal connection between the medical profession and the medical faculties. The two ought to be closely connected, simply because if one is trained in universities he is admitted to practice. It should, therefore, be laid down what the legal relations are between the medical profession and the medical faculties. The position now is that we have two universities that train doctors professionally, and that there is absolutely no legal relation between the medical profession and the universities training doctors. There is another point I want to mention, and it is that for long it has been necessary in South Africa to pass legislation which will place the trade in poisons under a more thorough control. There is a laxity about the handling of, and the dealing in, poisons which is very unsatisfactory. It is stated, I believe, perfectly correctly, that there is not a civilized country in the world where it is so easy to get possession of poison as in South Africa, and that that is the reason why it is so difficult to trace crimes of poisoning. It was high time for us to have legislation in this respect. It is also high time to give effect to the international undertaking given by the South African Government in signing the treaty of Versailles. In one of the sections of the treaty all the signatories undertake that within twelve months they will introduce legislation to validate the resolutions of the opium conference of 1912. That conference provided for proper control of the production and distribution of habit forming materials such as opium. Provision is made in our Customs Act for the making of regulations in connection with the matter, but it is self-evident that legislation by regulations which may be altered is a highly unsatisfactory way of giving effect to our undertaking. It was the intention of the treaty of Versailles that legislation should be passed, and other countries have acted in this direction in laying down rules such as are proposed in the Bill now before the House. There is another important aspect which I must mention here, and which, undoubtedly, is one of the strongest arguments why this Bill should actually be passed during this session. In South-West Africa there is now a certain measure of self-government. The legislative assembly of South-West has power to pass legislation in various respects, and I think I am correct in saying that the less the laws of South-West and those of the Union differ from each other the better in the interests of both. The legislation ought to be such that we retain a link between the two, and that we make it closer. The position is that South-West has no Medical Act to-day, and that nurses and midwives do not require to be registered. In South-West the need is however, felt for having a Medical Act, and preparations have already been made to put one on to the statute book as soon as possible. I have had correspondence with the Administrator of South-West about the matter, and he understands the necessity of our passing such an Act in the Union as will also be acceptable in South-West, so that it will be unnecessary for South-West to pass its own Medical Act. In consequence of this correspondence certain clauses have been included in the Bill with which the legislative body in South-West is apparently satisfied. If the Bill is put on the statute book this year it is highly probable that the South-West legislature will not pass its own act, but our act can be proclaimed in South-West with their consent. If the Medical Act is not passed this year the opportunity will be lost, perhaps for ever, of keeping South West and the Union in close sympathy with each other. There is another reason why I think the Bill is very urgent, viz., because a portion of the medical profession is, to-day, unprotected, with unfortunate consequences I am referring especially to the dental profession. There was a time in South Africa, and not so long ago, that there was a great lack of dentists. This lack was however, gradually remedied, and more and more provision was made by a large number of young South Africans going overseas to study dentistry. A dental faculty was added to the Witwatersrand University last year, so that to-day, we are in the position that dentists, as well as medical men, can he trained in South Africa. On account of dentists not being sufficiently protected in South Africa, a large number of unqualified persons have appeared upon the scene in South Africa. Some of them were qualified as dental mechanics, but were not trained in the theory of dentistry. From the scientific point of view of dentistry they know nothing. As the law stands to-day, they can simply do everything which is done by a qualified dentist as long as they do not take impressions of the mouth and themselves fix the false teeth in the patient’s mouth. They evade the law by handing the false teeth to the patient. The patient himself takes the impression and fits the teeth and, in this way, the dental mechanics carry on practice just as dentists and compete with qualified persons. What makes the matter worse is that the mechanics are not registered under the existing law nor can they be registered, and, therefore, any person, whether qualified or not, can represent himself as a dental mechanic and compete with the qualified dentist. The result is that quite a number of unqualified persons practise as dentists in the Union. The unqualified man the mechanic practising as a dentist, has to a certain extent an advantage in carrying on his practice over the dentist who is properly qualified. The latter is subject to the rules of the Medical Council and must abide by professional etiquette. The dental mechanic need not do so and can advertise as much as he likes, while the dentist may not. The result is that a good number of young South Africans, who have spent trouble and money to go and qualify thoroughly overseas, cannot make a living today in South Africa on account of unfair competition, and leave our shores to go and practise overseas. Qualified dentists in Natal and elsewhere are commencing to argue—

The result is that dental practice as a whole is brought down to a low level, and that the public is left to the mercy or the reverse of unqualified and incompetent persons. It is necessary for the protection of the public that legislation should be passed to put an end to this undesirable state of affairs. I shall explain the important provisions of the Bill in detail. The Bill, in the first place, is to bring about unification of control by a general South African Medical Council for the whole Union, and to create a single pharmacy board. Under the existing law there are no less than seven different bodies. It is now proposed to create a medical council consisting of 23 persons. They will represent the Government and the various medical professions, dentists, nurses, midwives, masseurs and also the universities. When I introduced the Bill last year a council was proposed consisting of 22 members. It was, however, felt to be necessary that the mental in situations commission, or in any case someone or other at the head of a hospital for mental defectives should also have a seat on the council, because it will institute examinations for nurses in mental hospitals. The pharmacy board will consist of 8 members, representatives of the Government and the apothecaries. The election of the board in so far as members are elected and not nominated, will occur in such a way that all four provinces will be properly represented on the board, and that one province shall not have a majority, and so be able to lay down the law to the other provinces. The intention further exists, if the Bill becomes law, that the medical council and the pharmacy board shall also be self-supporting. Under existing circumstances, they come to the Government for grants, and they obtain every year about £400 from the Government. As for the qualifications for the medical council, the council shall recognize the medical degrees of universities in this country and overseas, and it shall have power to register persons applying to practise the profession; but their capacity in this respect shall not be unlimited. Any applicant who is rejected and feels aggrieved shall have the right, according to the Bill, of going to the Supreme Court. There are a number of important alterations in other respects. The medical council has hitherto had power, and will also have it under the new Bill, to suspend, or completely remove from the roll, persons on account of misbehaviour. When this has happened, up to the present, the matter had to be referred to the Minister, and suspension or removal could not take place without the consent of the Minister. It is now proposed that the medical council shall itself have the power of suspension and removal, and an aggrieved person shall have the right to go to the Supreme Court. I further want to point out that this Bill is based on the principle that anyone who wants to practise the various professions for reward must be registered. That is undoubtedly in the interests of the public. The public, who have to be treated by such persons, must be enabled to distinguish the man with a proper training, who is registered, from the person without training, who is not registered. The only way to make a practical distinction is by proper registration of qualified persons. Further, the standard of qualifications and of the profession itself must be kept high. That can only happen if the applications for admission to practise for reward are properly formulated, and if the persons who are admitted are properly registered. Further, there is certainly no profession where the practitioners stand in such an intimate relation towards the persons they treat as the medical profession. The doctor and the patient occupy a particularly intimate relation towards each other, and therefore it is absolutely necessary that the people who exercise the profession should be people of high character, and that it should be seen to that professional men act according to certain rules and professional etiquette laid down. This cannot possibly be assured unless the professional men are properly registered, and come under the supervision of a qualified board. This is in the interests of the public and the principle of registration is already in force in most other occupations. The lawyer who has to do with technically ignorant persons and in whose hands the ignorant person puts his affairs and leaves them for attention is properly registered, if he is qualified to exercise his profession. When anyone is appointed to teach and educate children, someone who has to have a good character and be able to form the minds of the children, he must be properly qualified and registered as a teacher. But, further, in all occupations in which the public are interested, and in which the interests of the public have to be properly protected, it is required that professional men should, be properly qualified and registered. We will allow no one to operate electrical machinery which is dangerous and complicated unless he is properly qualified and registered. The human machine is much finer and more complicated than any other that we know, and it goes without saying that the State should see to it that anyone treating that complicated and delicate human machine should be properly qualified and registered, and have experience of the human body. The medical profession contributes more to the happiness of people than any other profession, and so there will surely be no one in the House who will object to the general principle of the Bill as regards qualification and registration. In the requirements for registration no important amendments are proposed in the Bill, and persons who are registered under the existing law in the four provinces, and are entitled to practise will, if this Bill passes, be automatically entitled to be transferred to the new register, and will become entitled to practise their calling throughout South Africa. Those who can be registered now will also be entitled to registration under the new Bill, and those who cannot be registered now will have a similar incapacity under the new Bill, except in a few special cases which I will make plain later. As regards oversea degrees, and students who have studied oversea, there is no change. The reciprocity between South Africa and other countries which now exists will continue. If our doctors trained here go, e.g., to Great Britain they are ipso facto admitted to practise their profession and, vice versa, if doctors come from Great Britain to South Africa. Here it is, however, provided that a person coming from a country with which we have no reciprocity cannot carry on his profession unless he has obtained a certificate by examination to practise in that country, and that that examination is in every respect equivalent to the examination required to be passed by such persons practising their profession who have been trained here. In this way our own young people trained here are protected against less qualified persons from overseas. As for the studies of South African students they will be permitted, as in the past, to go to any recognized university in any part of the world —whether we have reciprocity or not—to be there trained, and if they have obtained the diploma they can ipso facto be admitted to practice in South Africa. Now I come to the part of the Bill dealing with dentists. As I have said, dentists are better protected by this Bill than formerly. Evasion of the existing law, such as has hitherto taken place, viz., that impressions of the mouth and fitting of the artificial teeth shall not be done by the dental mechanic himself, but by the patient, and for such a person to actually practise as a dentist is made impossible under the Bill. There is, therefore, a clearer distinction than before between the qualified dentist and the person who is only a dental mechanic. On the other hand, it provides that while the mechanic cannot be registered as such under the existing law he can in the future, if the Bill is passed, be actually registered as a dental mechanic. He will, therefore, be protected against the unqualified mechanic which he is not under the existing law. The position of the dentist is consequently also improved under the Bill. There is a clause which was in the Bill last year which has been taken out. That clause made it possible for a person to be registered as a dentist if he had a British diploma in dentistry which was not previously acknowledged here, and who had been in practice in South Africa for ten years. That clause has been removed, but it was originally only included to meet one case.

Two cases.

There was a person or persons in Cape Town who wanted to be registered under the new law. I learnt that the person or persons had acquired the capacity, since last year, of being registered under the existing law, so that the provision was no longer necessary. Now we come to the registration of nurses and midwives which the Bill places on a better footing. Their uniforms are protected under the Bill so that there shall be a clear difference as regards uniforms between nurses and, say, nursemaids. As regards masseurs, it was not possible previously for them to be registered and to be protected as a class against unqualified masseurs. The Bill makes proper provision for their registration and representation on the Medical Council. As regards midwives, the Bill proposes to take a very important step in advance. Midwives could indeed be registered, but further than that it did not go. They were not liable to any supervision or discipline, and the consequence was that any person could practise as a midwife. Unqualified persons often did so, and the consequences were often terrible, especially to the country portion of the population. The abnormal child mortality is undoubtedly largely attributable to unqualified persons acting as midwives. We must admit that the number of qualified midwives in the country is not sufficient for the need, and that it is especially difficult in the country districts to obtain properly registered midwives. The Bill accordingly wants to take account of the conditions. Although the Bill will bring about more control of midwives, it will in future also make better provision for existing requirements. For this reason the Bill proposes that there shall be areas where only qualified and registered midwives may carry on that occupation for payment. Anyone may practise without payment, but only registered persons may do so in proclaimed areas. Further areas can be proclaimed by the Governor-General in Council, i.e., the Cabinet, on the recommendation of the Medical Council, as soon as there are qualified persons to properly do the work. If a new area be proclaimed, midwives who were at work there in the past, at least three years before the date of proclamation, shall further be permitted to practise for payment notwithstanding the proclamation, provided such midwives can produce a certificate by two doctors in the district where she works that she can do the work satisfactory. This meets the case of competent midwives who have made themselves proficient by practice. The public has a great interest in being protected against incompetent midwives. There has been a law regarding this matter in the Free State since 1907. Urban areas with more than 2,000 inhabitants are there proclaimed, and only qualified midwives are admitted to practise there. Many municipalities have also made use of their powers to apply these provisions in their areas. I hope that as a result of this provision the terrible child mortality in South Africa will decrease. With regard to another provision in the Bill, there was a misunderstanding last year among some members, or they at any rate did not appreciate the point then. It is that persons can be registered in the future to practise for reward, who under the existing laws cannot be registered, and therefore cannot practise for reward. These are hydropaths who are properly trained, or at any rate so do their work that they give general satisfaction. There are people who improve health by systematic physical culture, such as, e.g., Tromp van Diggelen, or by scientific regulation of diet. Those naturopaths and others cannot be registered under existing laws, but will now be able to exercise their calling for reward if they have been properly trained. Registration takes place on the recommendation of the Medical Council, and they are also protected against other similar persons who want to live on the public, but are not properly qualified, and are a danger to the public. That occurs to-day because there is no proper supervision. Proper provision is now being made for supervision, and only persons who do good work can exercise their calling. But inasmuch as they are not scientifically well equipped, and have not had such an extended medical education as other doctors, it would not be fair to register them on an equal footing with other doctors. They have not the knowledge of the different diseases like ordinary doctors. In the treatment of disease it is necessary to know the diseases and to be able to discover them, and the diagnosis of diseases ought to be the function of properly trained persons alone. The persons I have named will be the only ones having power to treat others according to the way in which they are trained, but they may not make a diagnosis, and their registration should also be conditional on that. They cannot be permitted to make a diagnosis without proper scientific training. The Bill which I have tried to explain has not many contentious points. Certainly 95 per cent. of its provisions are approved by almost all members of the House. Last year there was a difference of opinion in connection with Clause 34, and the reason was twofold. An attempt was made by unqualified and unregistered persons who cannot be registered under the existing laws to obtain registration under the new Bill on an equal footing with other medical practitioners. In other words, they tried to obtain rights which they had not hitherto possessed. The second reason is that certain hon. members thought that the provisions as to registration in Clause 34 were too narrow, and were unfair towards certain people. The clause of last year, e.g., provided that nobody could be admitted, or rather, that it should be punishable by law to practise for a reward or payment directly or indirectly “in the hope of receiving such.” These last words were objected to. I then pointed out, and want to do so again, that this clause is not intended to prevent anyone from being medically treated by a nonqualified man, nor does it prevent an unqualified person from giving medical assistance to any other individual. All the clause means is that an unqualified person may not make it his occupation; in other words, may not practise for monetary consideration. The reason for that is that before anyone treats an invalid, he ought to be qualified. An unqualified person cannot do so, and is consequently dangerous. I want further to point out that no one is being deprived under the Bill of any rights which he formerly possessed. In this respect the Bill has practically been left unaltered. If anyone could not hitherto be prosecuted for a contravention of the law, that will also be the case after the passing of the Bill. The second objection taken is the objection to the exercise of the medical profession in expectation of a reward, and this is met by the Bill. I propose in the Bill to leave out in Clause 34 of last year—

This means that a person is only punishable if it is proved that he or she has carried on medical practice for gain which has actually been received. In Clause 87 (2) the word “profit” is defined, which makes this point quite clear. Therefore, the objection of last year has been met in this respect. As Clause 34 stood last year, it simply sated the existing law. The Bill on this point has not been made stricter, but the old law has been taken over. Yet I acknowledge that there was a certain amount of force in the argument against the provision that any deed or any act which belongs to the exercise of medical practice is made punishable if it is exercised for reward, e.g., giving instruction in systematic physical culture is something one would say belonged to medical practice. An ordinary physician can prescribe for his patient a course in physical culture or regulation of diet. As the Bill stood, a person who was not registered and gave a lesson in physical culture could come under the penalty clause. It is therefore desirable that the Bill should be amended, and that has been done. In this respect, the objection has been met, and I trust therefore that much of last year’s opposition will not recur this year. As the Bill is urgently necessary, and provides for a long-felt want, I hope that it will be passed into law this year.

This is a Bill which has been so often before Parliament, that it is quite an old friend. It has passed already two second readings in this House, and has been before three Select Committees, two in this House and one in the other House, so that, particularly after the very detailed speech of the Minister, I do not think it will be necessary to take up much time in discussing it, and I think most hon. members will agree with the Minister—I certainly do—that a Bill such as this is required, is urgently required, for the reasons which he gave.

By the public?

Yes, by the public. I know the hon. member has ideas of his own, but I venture to say that even in the interests of the public and of the hon. member himself, if he only knew it, this Bill is urgently required. It is required for the proper protection of the medical profession, and, as the Minister has said, we have now in our universities in South Africa medical courses in which students can qualify for the medical and dental professions. For the protection of these professions, it is required, and also, as the Minister has said, it is urgently wanted in order to give proper provision for regulating and controlling the sale of poison and of habit-forming drugs. It is highly unsatisfactory that we in South Africa, as the Minister has said, under an obligation as we are to the League of Nations to bring in proper legislation for regulating the sale and importation of habit-forming drugs, should discharge our obligations merely by regulations in the Customs Act. It is highly desirable that a law should be passed dealing with this matter and bringing us into line with the other civilized nations of the world. What has been the stumbling-block in the past and was the stumbling-block when I had charge of a Bill like this, and last time when the Minister introduced it, is Clause 34. That was the clause around which controversy raged. When I was in charge of the Bill my greatest opponent in these matters was an hon. member who now sits behind the Minister as Minister of Labour. He was a great antagonist of Clause 34.

Where is he?

I do not know whether the Minister has succeeded in removing his opposition by what he has just told us about the provisions of Clause 32.

It was in the Bill last year.

But he (the Minister of Labour) was sitting behind the Minister last year, too. I hope for the sake of peace in that harmonious brotherhood, the Cabinet, that that objection has been got over. I rather doubt whether the provisions to which the Minister refers will really meet the case that he thinks it will meet. He says he has provided by Clause 32 the means whereby osteopaths, chiropractors and this other miscellaneous collection of people we get from America and Durban will be met, and he will really meet the needs of all these various people. I think, if he was going to do that, and provide for the registration of all these various kinds of people who profess to cure the ailments of mankind, he ought to have made it more explicit. It is only when you go half-way down the clause that you see it. You see a clause dealing with dental mechanics, and the others are slipped in under their wing. Will the fact of these people being registered make it any easier to practise under the terms of Clause 34? If they would have been liable to prosecution under Clause 34 in the past, had there been no Clause 32, they would be liable still, it seems to me, because if they perform acts which specially pertain to medical practitioners; they would still be liable under Clause 32—or so it seems to me after reading the Bill hastily. On the needs and principle of the Bill we are all agreed, and I hope that the Bill may now, at last, come over the threshold. In the past there was so much opposition to the Bill, that it sank by its own weight down the Order Paper, but this session we have an Order Paper that is crying for material, and the Government seems to be ransacking the inner recesses of their desks to find work for a week or two, till they make up their minds for more important matters. I hope that in this calm weather, and at this dead centre in which we are, this Bill may go on the statute book. What I wish to say on Clause 34 I prefer to keep for the committee stage.

I am one of those who do not look with alarm to the calm. What do hon. members wait?

We want something to do.

There are lots of opportunities on private members’ day, and I cannot follow in the attack on the Government in this respect—that they have not provided more legislation. I think we have been told by the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) on more than one occasion that what this country suffers from is too much legislation. But this particular Bill is not a matter of no importance—it is a matter of very great importance. It is not a Bill of a trivial and harmless character, but is a very important Bill. It is one that has taken up the time of Parliament on many occasions, and on two of the Select Committees that have dealt with this Bill I have sat, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). There is no doubt that the various discussions of the Bill have done good. Last year I pointed out that certain words should be deleted. A discussion took place, and here is the result. The Minister has, in the interval, deleted the words which I said last year might be of a harmful character, and no doubt if we had more discussion the Minister would be convinced on more points. It only shows the value of discussion. There is an urgent need for consolidating the law dealing with medical practitioners, chemists, druggists, nurses and all the various classes of persons enumerated under the Bill. We have now been in the Union for nearly 17 years, and it is high time that a Bill of this kind was brought forward and passed. I do not know how long the poor lawyers will have to wait for a consolidating law for the legal practitioners in the Union, but I hope the Government will tackle this thing at an early date. I heartily welcome the consolidation of laws which are a protection to the various professions. As a professional man in another branch, I think they ought to be protected, and I would like to say that I am not advocating that any man who is without medical qualifications should be allowed to practise as a doctor, or any man without dental qualifications should be allowed to practise as a dentist. The remarks I have made on a previous occasion on this Bill have been misinterpreted. It has been said that I have delivered an attack on these various professions—nothing of the kind. I respect them; I have employed them for myself and for my family, and I have the highest respect for their performance. I hope that what I now say will not be misinterpreted as far as my attitude to these professions is concerned. But it is not so much what is in the Bill, as what is left out of the Bill, to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. Last year the Minister delivered a serious attack on all persons who did not practise the orthodox medical profession, and all those outside of it were dubbed quacks. I am glad that the Minister has not repeated this performance this afternoon. I am glad because on further enquiry hon. members will come to the conclusion that there are other forms of healing that have established themselves in the world which are entitled to most serious consideration, but which are not within the ordinary work of the doctor. In many cases the public have taken to these new forms, and have reaped enormous benefits from these new, drugless methods of healing. These practitioners have training colleges and give years of training. They have pretty well studied all the science that the doctor studies, but they do not study, and they do not believe in, drugs. That is really the difference between them and the medical profession. They have established themselves, not by virtue of the fact that governments recognize them, but that the public, by ocular demonstrations and the cures that have been effected, have gone to them in large numbers. I do say that in this Bill there should be some recognition of these drugless healers. I do not say that an osteopath should practise as a doctor, but that he should be allowed to practise as an osteopath, and provided he can prove to a board established by the Government that he has had the proper training, and that he can perform his duty to the public as an osteopath, he should be allowed to practise as such.

Should he advertize?

I do not suggest that he should advertize, but you force them to do so now. He would not have to advertize if my amendment were carried. The board that would be constituted under my amendment, which I hope to move in committee, will deal with osteopaths in the same way as doctors are dealt with—by a board established by the Government.

Would you put in the Bill that they must not advertize?

You cannot put that in the Bill. You do not say in the Bill that doctors should not advertize. That comes under the regulations from the Medical Council. How are these people able to pay the enormous advertizing fees in the newspapers? Because they have the public ear, and the public are not in the habit of being twice deceived by an individual. People go again and again, and some of the most eminent men go to these people.

And regret it afterwards.

I do not know whether my hon. friend has had an unfortunate experience. I can mention the names of some eminent men, both in and out of Parliament, and I have a letter from an ex-member who said that the Prime Minister himself derived benefit from an osteopath. I could give the hon. member the name of an eminent judge who recently met me, and said that after a serious accident he was treated by one of these chiropractors, and was extremely grateful for the difference in his health after this treatment. You have to march with the times, and you have to realize that science has been marching too. You must know that there are other methods of dealing with health than those employed by the medical man. You must not put these other people outside the ring fence as being criminals. People only go as a rule to these people when they have been given up as hopeless by medical practitioners, so that the former have difficulty in establishing a cure. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) talked about people coming here from America to practise these new healing methods. But quite a number of young South Africans are going there and are becoming qualified in these new arts. I received last year a telegram from a gentleman who gave evidence before the Select Committee on the Bill. The gentleman states that three of his children are practising as naturopaths. The Minister may say that we have our own universities turning out doctors in South Africa, but the people to whom I referred would not qualify as naturopaths if there was not something in that science, and if the South African public want their services we have to make provision for these new forms of healing. At the same time we must see that these persons do not impose on the public by describing themselves differently from the way in which they are entitled to do by their certificates, and to make sure that they are qualified to practise the particular form of healing which they claim to have the knowledge to do. I agree that they should be registered, but under Section 32 of the Bill they would simply be put on the list if the Council thought fit, but that does not give them the right to practise, so that section will not assist them or the public. The Medical Council are deadly opposed to all these practitioners, regarding them as quacks, so we may be perfectly certain that the Medical Council will not think fit to establish such a register. I am not going to deal in detail with the various cures which have been effected by these men. In the letter I have already referred to, I am told that three of the Durban medical men went to an osteopath for treatment, while five of them sent their wives, their husbands being unable to help them. When we have doctors going to drugless healers, we must pause before we say there is nothing in drugless healing. A local gentleman who wrote to me asking me to use my influence against the suppression of drugless healing says he knows of a number of people who have been benefited by drugless healing, and he himself has derived advantage from it. Writing from Hales Owen, Cape Province, a lady informs me that chiropractors are registered in thirty States in the United States and in two of the Canadian Provinces. If a special Bill were brought into this House dealing with these people it would be beneficial to them and to the public, but the Minister has made no attempt to do that. Recently a wonderful discovery has been made. Up to recently chiropractors, if they wished to find what part of the person’s spinal column was out of gear, had to do so by spinal manipulation, but a person has patented a most wonderful instrument which registers exactly that portion of the spine which is a little bit out and is causing trouble. This instrument is not possessed by any medical man. You may be a sceptic, but you have to realize that a successful attempt has been made to introduce various new forms of healing. South Africa has the right to have proper machinery provided so that only people qualified to carry out the new methods of treating disease shall be allowed to practise these methods. We were able to convert the Select Committee of 1924 on the point regarding Christian Science. The hon. member for Yeoville was chairman of that Committee, which, by seven votes to one, carried an amendment I proposed providing that nothing in Section 34 of the Bill shall be deemed to apply to the practice of the religious tenets of any church. The only member who voted against the amendment was the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager). I do not wish to say anything offensive to the Minister, but there is a good deal of hypocrisy about Clause 34. In effect this says that these are bad methods of healing, but so long as their practitioners do not make a charge, they can continue to practise these methods. Dr. Hubbard’s evidence before the Select Committee will be found in pages 41 to 55 of the report of the Committee. The hon. member for Paarl quoted the New Testament. But portions of the New Testament from Paul and Matthew were quoted by Dr. Hubbard which completely answered the hon. member for Paarl. That reduced the hon. member to silence, and demonstrated that Christian scientists did not depart from the precepts of Christianity when they charged for their services. As Dr. Hubbard very well pointed out, you cannot possibly expect men like himself to take an office and give up the whole of his time to tending the public for nothing. I think Dr, Hubbard had been an ordinary medical practitioner, but he gave up his medical qualifications and studied Christian Science. There is a way of killing drugless healers by telling them that they can exercise their skill as much as they like, but they must not charge for their services. My hon. friend (Mr. Strachan) thinks this is one way of getting rid of politicians. Politicians are worthy of their hire, and they see that they get it. The Minister ought to agree to this amendment. This particular exemption of Christian Scientists has taken place in many parts of the world. In a large number of American States the exact form of amendment I moved in the Select Committee has been recognized. I hope the Minister will allow it to go in. There is a third class which has been referred to, and I think the help they get is very poor. The Minister thinks Clause 32 helps the dental mechanics, but it does not help them in the least. The dental mechanic will not receive any further help by being on the list. I do not want the dental mechanic to practise as a dentist, and no one has suggested it. We do not want him to take out teeth or to diagnoze the condition of the mouth or to treat pyorrhea. Neither do we want him to give advice. I hope this will appeal to those who represent working class constituencies, because it is an appeal on behalf of working men who are following a handicraft. Dentistry consists of many things, and one branch is dental mechanics. Dental students taking their course at the university also take dental mechanics, but although they are trained to do it they very rarely carry it out themselves when they practise as dentists. The taking of an impression of the mouth is recognized all over the world as the work of the dental mechanic. It is exactly the same as the tailor who measures you for a suit of clothes, or the man who measures you for a wooden leg. The preparation of the mouth is the work of the dentist. It is the work of the dental mechanic to put the preparation in the mouth for taking the impression, and it is also part of the dental mechanic’s work to put the teeth in the mouth when finished. You have to distinguish between the work of the professional man and the purely mechanical work. Under my amendment I propose to have dental mechanicians registered in future as such, and none but dental mechanicians registered shall do the work themselves. Unregistered men would have to do the work under the supervision of a dentist. Let me give you an example of a man who writes from Cape Town. He says—

He is a poor man, but he can make teeth, fit teeth and take the impression. They are all part of one thing. Under this Bill that man has got to work only for a dentist. The dentist tells him to make the teeth, and he does exactly the same thing he has been doing before, except that he does the work for the dentist. The labourer is worthy of his hire. Let me read you an example why these men feel bitter about it. Take the evidence of a Johannesburg man. Conditions there are not quite the same with regard to dental mechanicians, because they have done more of the dental work. On page 29 of the 1923 evidence, in answer to Mr. Conroy, a witness said—

How can you prevent him doing dental work?

You cannot prevent him unless you have a proper staff of police always on the watch. Abuse is one thing, and use another. I advocate legitimate use by craftsmen of their craft. We have evidence that where there has been abuse people have been prosecuted. Whether there has been abuse or not, I ask is it right or fair that a working man who has gone through a proper and legitimate training as a dental mechanic should be deprived by legislation of getting the fruits of his labour?

Let them organize.

Yes, but it is no use locking the stable door after the horse is stolen.

If you only allow a dental mechanic to do his work on the instructions of the dentist, how is he going to make a living?

He is in the same position as a barrister.

No, he is not. A barrister may be retained in certain circumstances by any member of the public.

Is he any different to a bricklayer?

The bricklayer has organized his calling in such a way that his union is a greater protection than any Parliament can give him. It is the union which prevents the abuse of the bricklayer.

Then let the dental mechanics organize.

Yes. I hope they will, and I hope when the time comes that they do that, they will not need protection from Parliament. You are not giving the dental mechanic a fair deal. You are letting him do the job and the dentist pockets most of the payment, and the dental mechanic does not get as much as he would if he did the work himself. Let me refer to the evidence before the Select Committee to show that this particular work is not dentistry, but dental mechanics. On page 25 of the Select Committee, 1923, Mr. Hyde said—

He then gives details of dental mechanics according to the principles and practice laid down by the Royal Dental Hospital of the London School of Dental Surgery. The taking of the impression, the making of the teeth, and the fitting in of the teeth according to the Royal Dental Hospital of the London School of Dental Surgery is recognized as dental mechanics, and not dentistry. If the working man confines himself to dental mechanics, only, there is no reason why he should not be allowed to take the impression and fit the teeth. I intend to move an amendment to make it not illegal for a dental mechanic to do what dental mechanics are trained to do. It is the same thing as saying—-

The workman is, in other words, not allowed to take the measure of his job. [Time limit.]

The Minister stated that the Bill was very necessary, but it seems to me that the necessity only exists on the part of the doctors. The Bill greatly protects the doctors, but there is nothing in it which protects the public. The public are not at all protected against high medical charges. I should like to know why no tariff of doctors’ fees is fixed in the Bill as is done in connection with other occupations. The doctors sometimes charge very much, especially when they have to travel long distances to reach a patient. Poor people cannot pay high fees, and they cannot call in a doctor. Has not the poor man then a right to live? The Minister said that the doctors feel that they ought to be better paid and that, therefore, a ring fence is now being drawn around them. This is quite superfluous. The doctors want to keep all the work for themselves. In a certain village there are two midwives and one doctor, and the doctor has already complained that there are too many midwives in the place encroaching upon his practice. If the Bill is only applied to the large towns there is something to be said for it, because there one has every convenience. In the country, however, the public will suffer. They are already paying too much for medical facilities. A medical council is appointed, but I have not yet seen any doctors being punished if they make a mistake. The Minister said that the Bill deprived no one of rights he possessed. If the Bill is passed as drawn, then there are many people who will no longer be in the position of getting medical assistance. A poor man cannot bear the expense if he has to send for a doctor fifty or sixty miles off, and the doctors definitely refuse to undertake a journey if they know the person calling them in cannot pay. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) can listen, because if he is not satisfied with a midwife he can order a nurse to be engaged. The Minister said that midwives are very unsatisfactory. On the countryside people are only too happy to have one. They know quickly enough whether she can do her work or not. The Minister now says that the work can be done gratis, but if the woman has to come by cart for three to six hours and to remain with the case for fifteen days or a month she cannot do it for nothing. I think the Bill is entirely wrong for the circumstances in the country. We have not asked for it. It is the doctors who want it. The dentists want to be protected against the dental mechanics who are themselves trained by the dentists. I know mechanics who can make better teeth than the dentists. It is said that the latter spend more money on their education, but there are some of them who are not too competent. I hope the Bill will be withdrawn.

I must congratulate the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) on the case that he put up, particularly in dealing with the operative dental mechanics. I would like to read a letter which I have in my hands from the Operative Dental Mechanics’ Association of the Transvaal in which the secretary says—

That is from an organized society of dental mechanics in the country, and they are satisfied with the Bill as now drafted. I think one could not get a better answer to the statements made by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) than this letter. I would like to touch upon the question of the osteopaths and drugless healers and their claim to be exempted from such a Bill as this. In my view to exempt these classes in a Medical and Dental Bill would be entirely wrong, because they are the very negation of dental and medical practice. Osteopaths, chiropractics and similar gentlemen have received a certain amount of protection and been given a certain status in the United States, but by means of separate Bills. They have not been tacked on to the medical, dental and pharmacy Bills of those countries. I would suggest to the hon. member for Hanover Street that if he wishes to state a case on behalf of those people he should introduce a private measure and endeavour to convince this House that they are entitled to some measure of protection. I think it would be very wrong if this House were to give these people exemption under the present Bill. Let us deal with the Bill on its merits. Let us in committee try and rectify certain things that may want rectification, but do not let us destroy the whole intention and idea of the Bill by opening the floodgates as it were to all sorts of quackery and all sorts of unqualified practice, which would ultimately re-act to the great disadvantage and danger of the great masses of people in this country. It is essential that people should know who are qualified and who are able to give them proper service and render that service in a qualified and capable manner, and it is only by passing the provisions of a Bill of this kind that we can give the public that assurance. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to one or two points, which he might consider between now and the committee stage. In clause 51 provision is made for the sale of poisons to be handed over in certain districts to private dealers, to men who have no qualifications whatever, who know nothing whatever about the poisons they are handling. In certain cases they would be given a permit by the magistrate. These people should be under some supervision by the Pharmacy Board of the Union. Then in regard to the question of limited companies practising as chemists and druggists, in clause 76 it is laid down that the managing director or the principal executive official of the company shall be a chemist and druggist. I would like the Minister to consider whether it is a sufficient protection to the public to have only one chemist and druggist in these companies amongst a board of laymen. I think the profession would require, and the public would also require, a bigger representation of chemists and druggists on a board of directors than just a solitary one, and it is even not necessary that there should be one on the board. The chemist and druggist may simply be an executive official of the company. I trust that the Minister may be able to meet that position and make certain amendments. As far as the necessity for the Bill going through is concerned, I think we have had it explained in years gone by that the training of chemists and druggists has been allowed to drift, because the various provinces have been expecting a new law to come into effect. This Bill will lay down the right of the Union Pharmacy Board to institute schools of pharmacy where under we shall be able to give much better training and to produce better chemists than we can to-day, in the sense that we can give them a much better training and we shall be able to train them at less expense to themselves and in a shorter period of time, they will be able to take their examinations and become fully qualified members of the profession. I cannot too strongly emphasize the trouble we have in this direction, but I would just point out that at the last Pharmacy Board examination in the Transvaal 43 candidates sat, and of these only 16 passed. That shows the necessity and the urgency for having suitable means of training so far as the professional side of the business is concerned. I would say that when the Bill goes through we shall have conferred upon all these young men a great boon, and incidentally a greater boon upon the country. There is another difficulty which has gone on for many years, and which applies particularly to the Free State. When a young man in the Free State becomes qualified he can only register in the Free State, and is debarred from practising in the other provinces, but in the other provinces they have a reciprocal arrangement. An English or an Irish chemist can come out and, by payment of, I think, £5, can set up in opposition to a Free State man, and can practise in any of the other provinces on payment of a certain amount. That is a grave injustice to the Free State chemist, and it is one that has to continue until this Bill goes through. Therefore, one sees the necessity there again for having this Bill. Another thing I want to point out is that under this Bill the Union Pharmacy Board would be in the position to refuse any outside diplomas for registration until they had a reciprocal arrangement. To-day you are training a large number of young men as chemists and druggists—and they are a fine class of men—but the output is greater than the country demands, and yet they are faced with this position, that we still have overseas competition in an unfair manner. According to the provincial Acts, a chemist coming from England or Ireland can be placed on the register of any province on payment of a certain fee. But no chemist from South Africa would be allowed to be placed on the register in England or Ireland. This Bill would enable the board to make an arrangement with the English Pharmaceutical Society to provide a reciprocal arrangement. That is the position in Australia in certain states; they have a reciprocal arrangement with England. I venture to submit that it is essential that this Bill should go through. As far as the Christian scientists and certain other religious bodies are concerned, that position, I think, is met in the Bill itself. Payment for work done by religious bodies should most firmly be put down. If the Christian Science Church is right in its Outlook, then let the supporters and members of that church pay for these men and let them go out into the highways and byeways. On the other hand, one does not like to think of the number of cases where proper treatment has been delayed, and of the cases of children who have no say of their own, but who are put under these people and often suffer a great deal of agony and are prevented from receiving proper treatment. I hope the second reading will be agreed to. I am quite certain the result of this Bill will be one of great advantage to the country, and to the people, and from a financial point of view, instead of four medical boards and four pharmacy boards, distributed over the provinces, we shall have one central council which will do the work more efficiently as a central authority and more cheaply. We shall turn out a better and more educated type of professional man, and there again the country will benefit.

I think we should be grateful to the Minister, after the cool reception of the Bill last year, for introducing it, somewhat altered, again. I am certain that the step is due to his being convinced that the Bill is very necessary. I fear we cannot deny, as regards last year’s debate on this Bill, that the charge is not altogether groundless that the House treated this important matter somewhat carelessly. If we think of the dangers of neglecting the public health in more than one respect and notice the interest of members in the matter, I think that I can easily say that some members showed a great lack of responsibility in dealing with this Bill last session. The Minister has very clearly explained the Bill, and I only want to add a few things. In considering this matter one feels at once that consolidation of the laws regarding medical practitioners, dentists, nurses, etc., is very desirable. The Minister has already mentioned the laws in the various provinces and the absurdities that exist. In one province—I have it from a reliable source—the position as to dentists is that they have become hopeless under the existing circumstances, and threaten to cancel their registration, and if the position is so, and if we consider the great need for qualified dentists, and that persons who have been properly trained have to resort to such a desperate remedy as that of cancelling their registration, I think we should appreciate what danger, at any rate a portion of our public health, runs in the circumstances. But we must remember that the provincial councils have not the power of improving things, and it rests with this House to take the necessary steps. I am further grateful to the Minister that he has also included the mandated territory of South-West, because if that is not done that territory which we regard as one with us, at any rate as regards this matter, will necessarily have to develop another system. Is it not absurd that while we annually spend large sums of money for the training of medical men, dentists and nurses, the State has no proper supervision over a matter of such great public importance? There are the two universities to which we annually vote large grants. Last year we granted about £72,000 to the Cape University and £81,500 to the Witwatersrand University. Those grants were not only made because they trained medical men—there are also other faculties in respect of which the State grants support—but the fact is that the two universities get a considerable grant because they train people as qualified medical men, and if they are trained then they must be registered and pay a fairly large registration fee—I think the fee proposed in this Bill is too high. They have spent all the money in qualifying, but there is no proper supervision by a medical council. On all sides he is subject to restrictions and expense, but the man who remains outside and is not qualified escapes. Even the experience of the last two years has taught us that a medical council is of great importance. Last year at least two doctors were removed from the roll because they misconducted themselves in their relations with the general public. The public ought to be guaranteed against such undesirable characters. It is interesting to note the complaints which are repeatedly made against the Bill. The argument of the opponents is that the Bill is introduced and passed into law to protect registered practitioners, to protect their field of work, to reserve it merely for medical men, dentists, nurses, etc., who are properly qualified. It is disappointing that some members cannot see the importance of public health. The Minister has already pointed out the intimate relations between patient and doctor. No relation is more close, and we must protect the public against the damaging influence of undesirable characters. I just want to call to mind the case in the Transvaal last year where someone misconducted himself by prescribing alcohol. The qualified man must be placed in the position of doing his duty towards the public and to be able to advance the public health. We spend a lot of money in precautions against danger to our public health from abroad. This money is spent in vain if we do not have a proper state of affairs at home if local bodies, etc., can exercise no supervision in securing our public health. I should like to go into details of the important role that midwives play in a woman’s life if the matter was not too delicate. The State will, however, be guilty of great dereliction of duty and neglect of the highest interests if the matter is not tackled. I am thankful in this connection that the Minister is dealing with the matter of midwives to a certain extent. It is one of the greatest needs to-day. The Minister and the House are not able to judge about the actual need. Those who want to object to the provision had better be silent. I am glad that encouragement for training and perfection in practice is being given. There are not enough midwives to-day, and that is where the provinces are not doing enough. That is, however, no reason why the blame should be thrown on other bodies. We should not neglect our duty when we have an opportunity of doing it. Many more midwives will be trained if they are protected. To-day there is a certain standard of education required before a woman can be trained as a midwife. When she is ready to commence her life’s work she has to compete against Piet’s grandmother, Jan’s aunt and others. Therefore, she is not able to work, and that is the reason why, in many parts of the country, nurses cannot be obtained. I repeat that the Minister and members of the House cannot judge of the tragedies which often take place. Every medical man can quote instances where the death of the mother or of the children and life-long disease of the family is attributable to wrong treatment in the hour of the greatest need. I hope the concession which has been granted in clause 39 to certain specified districts will not be postponed too long. Large powers are given to the Minister and, although I know the present Minister will act sensibly, I yet want to see provision made for the need as soon as possible. There are other arguments which have been raised against the Bill, one is that an injustice is being done to people who are competent. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) mentioned a number of people to whom an injustice would be done. I will not deny that great services are rendered by persons who prescribe a certain course or do massage, but I allege that if the people are to allow an open field without any limitation, then the public health will be brought into danger and the Minister and the Government will render themselves open to the accusation of having neglected the interests of the country. A person is not properly qualified unless he has made a thorough study of the human body, of anatomy and of physiology and the normal working of the body. A person cannot practise if he does not study the variations of the normal action, and has a knowledge of pathology. He must have made a study of these three necessary factors. I want the opponents of the Bill to listen. I am not speaking of medicine, but it is necessary that everybody who is permitted to diagnose should have knowledge of these three important factors. When we are asked to permit a certain freedom for a person to prescribe physical culture and the water cure or to do massage, I say it is necessary that he should have the necessary knowledge of the human frame. I hope the Minister will limit a certain field of operation for them, and will be just as careful about the character of that man as in the case of a doctor or dentist. We want to make provision for training and for the proper control of our public health. That can be done, but we must not be misled by the arguments often used in the House. One of them is that it will encroach too much against individual freedom to consult whom one wants. A more astonishing argument from an intelligent person like the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) I have not heard. Every day we live laws are being made by which the freedom of the individual is limited in his own interest, but we may not go so far in public health. What member of the House does not know the tragedy which recently occurred in Pretoria because steps were not taken to see that certain white women were prevented from consulting a certain Indian. Was it not in the interests of the people to limit personal freedom in such a case? I should think so. I hope the Minister will not allow himself to be deflected from the course taken, and I hope the House will pass the Bill. It is a necessary measure for our public health. My impression is that it has had a better reception this year than last. Suggestions can be made in committee to make the Bill more practical. I want to appeal to hon. members not to show the same opposition to the Bill as last year.

The last speaker (Dr. Stals) has spoken as if he were fearfully concerned about the public, about public health generally, and he has appealed to the House to give the Bill better treatment than last year. This Bill is, however, in the same form as that of last year, and the sufferer will be the country population. I am not at all surprised the townspeople approve of the Bill. They have in their immediate neighbourhood proper dentists and doctors, nurses and masseurs. Of course they are satisfied, but I challenge the Minister to state that the country population has asked for such a Bill. The country population is four square against it, and I have received a mandate from them to vote against the Bill every time. In my neighbourhood there are people who live 130 miles from the nearest village and doctor, and in an undeveloped part. Areas are now to be proclaimed and a Medical Council appointed. That council will again only consist of doctors. Those doctors are not so much concerned about public health and the happiness of the people, as hon. members so pathetically tell us, but they are out to make a living. We on the countryside are entirely satisfied with existing conditions, but now areas are to be proclaimed and all the quacks to be hanged, people who have done an endless amount of good. It is now said that the health of children and women is being undermined if there are no qualified doctors. I can honestly say that there is not more disease in the country than in the towns, and the children in the country do not show higher mortality than in the towns, where four or five doctors are falling over each other.

Can you give figures?

One can prove anything with figures. The Minister knew that the country population is opposed to the Bill, and I think it is not fair to come here now and ask us to support it. There are reasons why this Bill has been introduced five or six years and has never been passed. The whole countryside is against it, but unfortunately there are not enough farmers in this House; there are too many doctors, parsons and advocates. The farming population has never asked for this legislation, and are quite satisfied with the midwives they have. If a commencement is made with the proclamation of areas, we fear it will be extended from place to place. Is it not very unjust towards the countryside that the midwives there who have not special qualifications will have to stop practice after two years, although there are no qualified ones? So much has been made of the extraordinary capacity of the doctors. I do not want to repeat what I said last year about my experience. I can assure the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) that during the last two years I have had sufficient experience with regard to that capacity to make his hair stand on end. Then nothing is said in the Bill about a distinction being drawn between Europeans and coloured and blacks, etc. Can we go on with such a draft? When an area is proclaimed all fall under it, even natives and coloured people. It is quite impossible out on the countryside. I spoke last year about Aunt Ralie Botha. The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) laughs. His next-door neighbour has only recently called in her assistance. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) said last year that certain people only went for certain diseases to Aunt Ralie Botha. People who go to her have first consulted from one to three doctors. They say it is cancer, we can do nothing more. Aunt Ralie has hundreds of certificates for the cure of cancer. All members in the House complain of our having too many laws. Why then pass this Bill which the countryside does not want? No one but doctors will sit on a Medical Council. The public are not represented there. Life and health are nearest to people’s hearts. Why should we, when we are sick or on the brink of the grave, not have the right of calling in whomsoever we wish? We have freedom of conscience, why not freedom to choose medical men? Hon. members ought to think a little of the poor people who live from 50 to 150 miles from the nearest doctor. Doctors often do not come when they are not paid. Why should they not seek assistance from someone else whom they trust? At all meetings I addressed, my constituents instructed me to fight the Bill, and I appeal to my farming friends to support me. I cannot do otherwise. The hon. member for Hopetown has spoken somewhat contemptuously about facts. We think even of doctors whatever we wish. I don’t want to tell him what I think. I hope the Minister will again withdraw the Bill and commit it for good to the paper basket.

I did not wish to speak on this Bill, but the nature of the debate has made me change my mind. The hon. member for Middleburg (Mr. Heyns) has at the back of his head a way of thinking about physicians with whom he has come in contact which makes me think that the doctors that he knows are of another class than those we know here.

They are much the same.

The idea is that the doctors only go when they are paid.

That is often the case.

It happens in every profession that you are asked to do what you are not able to do. No member of the House could state that he was always able to comply with the requests for assistance, and consequently no one has the right to condemn doctors as people without sympathy of their fellow men because they have refused or have objected to visit a patient. I should just as little have the right of accusing a person of inhumanity because he said to a begger that he could not give him anything. * Last year I blamed an hon. member because he inveigled against South African doctors. He mentioned where he thought they had committed a mistake, but had not done so again. It is because he is afraid that he will again be rapped over the knuckles, and because his statements are exaggerated.

I will do it in committee.

He spoke about the apostolic faith. One of the pictures I imagine is of the hon. member with a forceps in his hand to draw teeth. I should rather have a trained person with proper instruments. The hon. member said that a meeting of farmers had instructed him to vote against the Bill, but he wants to convince the country that we should go backwards, and should no assist in educating the people.

We must not go too fast.

We cannot go too fast. There are a great many arrears to be caught up with. The Minister said that we ought preferably to be treated by a dentist who has been trained for his work and who is certificated for the work by training and experience, it is better for us, as our country is a great one and people live far from each other, that those who treat the sick should have the necessary knowledge. It is said that the people in the towns are privileged as against the man who lives 130 miles from a doctor. We wish, however, to do something for the far distant places as well. Affairs should be so arranged that proper medical attention is also provided at distant places.

What prevents the doctor to-day from going there?

Your son will not go if he is not protected and is deprived of his bread by a person who has sprung up from behind a bush. The Minister has spoken about the high mortality of the children in the towns, but the conditions are not peculiar. The mortality in the towns must be reduced, but that will not be done on account of an increase in the number of midwives. The Public Health Act ought to be amended in this respect, When, however, the destruction of cows with tuberculosis is discussed, who raised their voices against it? Then the farming members in the House would not assist. In Cape Town there are thousands of children dying on account of the dirty milk they are given. The cause of the high death rate of children in the country is something else. How many men are there who have already married their third wife? Most women die in childbirth or from diseases contracted there and on account of the Lad treatment they have received.

Does that not also occur in towns?

It also occurs there, because there are peculiar diseases in the towns. It must not be ascribed to the doctors. In the country the surroundings are more healthy. I want to add that when there is a Bill before the House which makes an attempt to improve our public health or the social conditions, and to put them on a more scientific basis and to test them by the circumstances, then it would befit the opponents to ask themselves what is better for the country and the people, to stand still where we are to-day or to advance? We must progress with modern methods, and if we want to help on the people it should be done on proper lines.

I know more about the countryside.

I grew up on the countryside. The basis of legislation of this kind is not the protection of one or other of the professions named in the Bill. The chief purpose of the Bill is the protection of the public. The opponents should adopt this as their ideal, and then it will not be necessary to worry themselves as to what will become of the doctors. If a Bill is passed which looks after the interests of the people and protects the people, then the doctors will abide by it as they did when they decided to become physicians. I know that there are people who say that young men become doctors to make money, and there are parents who say so to their children. It is a pity that it is so, but let me say that even if it is the case with some students, they will not after five or ten years have money as their ideal, but the interests of humanity. I say this from 30 years’ experience as a physician. It is not consistent with the view of the hon. member for Middleburg, but it is actually the ideal of the doctors. I am sorry that the Minister has altered Clause 34 by leaving out the words—

There are also many other clauses which still have to be debated, e.g., Clause 32. I am sorry that the provision with regard to chiropractors has been included. The medical profession is an honourable one and requires study, but in every profession there are followers who pick up something and then represent that they have discovered it. The chiropractors, e.g., state that they have found a machine that measures the backbone, and so they know what the trouble is. The machines as old as the treatment of disease by electricity. The electric current has certain action, and we know what the reaction is. It is used by science. When they, however, state that it is a machine which doctors may not see or even buy, then it compares unfavourably with the physicians. When the doctors know that a drug is useful, it is given to people to take, e.g., as in the case of insulin. It was made known to the world, and everybody could use it in a proper and desirable manner. We do not keep such knowledge to ourselves, but let the world know it. It is provided in connection with representation on Medical Councils that the midwives, masseurs and nurses (three podies) shall have two representatives. Seeing that the masseurs are in a small minority, I fear they will have no chance of getting a member on the council, and I think the Minister should give them a little more opportunity, either by increasing the number of members by one, or by providing that one of the two members to be elected by the three bodies shall possess a masseur’s certificate. It may be said that they are so few in number chat they require no representation, but just because they are so few I am afraid that there their profession will be left out of account. We can deal with other matters in committee. I do not agree with all the clauses, but welcome the Bill. Legislation which aims at the raising of the level of public health ought to find universal acceptance, and in principle we ought to support it.

I only want to say a few words. I think the public ought also to be protected. The protection of qualified doctors may be necessary, but there is also another side which must be protected. This Bill is exclusively meant for the protection of qualified medical men. We are all in favour of the improvement of public health, but the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) must not forget that the public must also be protected, and he must not try and jeer at one or other member on this side of the House when the latter stands up in the interests of the public, and argue that a doctor is a beneficient person. There may be individuals who are such, but most doctors are only too keen on first enquiring whether they will be paid before they attend a patient. Therefore, it is useless to put a special emphasis on the humanitarian side. I just, however, want to touch on a point as to what steps can be taken to prevent a man, who is certificated, but shows himself incompetent without being guilty of misconduct, from practising as a qualified doctor. It happens sometimes that a doctor, not once, but repeatedly makes a wrong diagnosis, and if it appears that a man, notwithstanding his studies, shows signs that he is not fitted to be a doctor what can then be done to protect the public? Then I should like to ask if it is not possible to lay down a scale of fees. There are many instances like the following. A specialist comes out to a rich man, and because he is rich, charges 200 guineas for a day’s work. If, however, a poor man consults him, he will refer him to some other doctor for treatment.

Or advise him to take some salts.

In the towns there is competition by one doctor against another, and so they cannot demand just what they please; but in the country, where they have to go 20 to 30 miles to see a patient, where there are one or two doctors in the district, the danger is only too great that they will rely in the state of affairs. The poor people in the far-off districts wait almost till death is impending before they call in a doctor because they are afraid of the high charges. Attorneys have a scale of payment for certain work. Why cannot that be done in the case of doctors by, e.g., fixing a tariff per hour or per mile they have to travel? Then there is the question of midwives. It is a good principle to try and get the best class of midwives in South Africa, but there are many midwives who have no diploma, but who, by their experience, are very fitted for their work. Can, in such a case, the testimonial of a doctor not suffice, instead of demanding that she should file a certificate of competency signed by two doctors. In certain parts there is only one doctor, and some of the midwives will, in such case, have to cease work notwithstanding high qualifications. Then again the public are not at all represented on the medical council. I think it would be a very good thing if these were one or two laymen on the council who also had a say. They will often give a much more impartial judgment about a doctor if one doctor charges another, e.g., in the case of suspension.