The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1912-10-26
FEE-SPLITTING BARRED
BY LOCAL DOCTORS

his patient that the great expense Is
incurred 10 meet the surgeons charge
The truth Is that he. i'm the surgeons
charge. conceals a fee for himself, OF
which he is ashamed or.afraid TO make
his patient aware.
The truth may be. in certain cases.
that the surgeon and the phlsician
have conspired 10 get from the patient
all that he can stand, for when once
such relations have been established
they will surely develop into a sys-
TENS OF eXtortion. The family physic-
ian will hunt after these profitable
cases and useless and Unnecessary op-
erations will become common.
There are doubtless many medical
men who have entered into such rela-
tions without full consideration OF
their meaning | would call the at
tention of such physicians to the fact
that money so gained is acquired UNI
der false pretenses. IL the transaction
could-be brought into court. no Judge
could pronounce it other than fraudu-
lent No honest man can afford TO
put himself I'm such position, nor caa
the medical profession afford TO con.
done such practices by its silence.
If they are tolerated. the great mass
OF surgery will fall into the hands
of the most INSCRIPTIONS and heart
less members OF the profession. and
medical practitioners, forgetful of
their relations OF trust, will descend
to the :Seanest and most degrading
commerCiallsm.
Or. Jennings writes:
AS the family physician has been
trusted in his direct dealing with his
patients, so he should be trusted in
this new relation, and he should here
be as honest as he has been in the
old relation. But how long will he be
entitled 70 this trust, and how long
Will he retain the confd once and re-
spect OF the community when he for
gets his responsibility as trusted
counsellor and sells his consultations,
operations and special cases To the
highest bidder? How long can he re-
tain his own selfrespect and accept
clandestine remuneration from a con-
sultant for services for which he pre-
sumably has been paid?'
DR. J II. CarsteEs contributes a
letter IN which he says of the fee-split-
ting practice
"All at once there came forth a
competitor for whom had not looked
and with whom | could not compete.
The pirate stepped forth on gum
shoes and sneaked around and whis-
pered In the ear OF the general prac-
titioner that the specialist was get
ting enormous fees and that he, the
poor general practitioner. was get
ting nothing. but was entitled 10 some
thing. That is. that he was entitled
TO commission And thus some OF
these pirates. without any reputation
even in the state, 10 say nothing
about national. in the course. OF
year or two got mp practice larger
than mine. which had taken my 10
wears Of hard work 20 establish. And
III | had not been so fortunate as 10
have enough honest, high-minded
general practitioners who supported
me. I would have been absolutely
swamped. and obliged to go to the
poor house ,or into business.
This commission business stops
progress. There is no incentive 10 ne
able, no chance for a man to be the
best. because the grafters who take
a commission would not come to you
because you are the ablest, puu 80 %
the man who pays the highest 60
mission. The poorest stick without
Judgment or manual dexterity oYten
gets the work and does big business.
'But | am glad to say that ! still
have faith in the unselfishness or the
profession. and that the rank and ME
of the family physicians are honest
and faithful to their trusts.