Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1941-03-12
Deny A. N. A.
Forced Rules
On Hospitals
Physicians Soy
Unit Had No Control
On Choice Of Stuffs
BY HAROLD b. ROGERS.

BY HAROLD b. ROGERS.
Attempting to refute the Govern
ments charge that the American
Medical Association had tried to
force compliance by hospitals with
its rules, the defense in the anti
trust trial today presented testimony
by two physicians that the A. M. A.
had no control over the admission
of doctors to hospital stats.
The two testifying were DR.. Chris
topher G. Parnall, administrator Of
Rochester IN. " General Hospital,
and DR.. J. Borden Heyd of New
York City, member of Council on
Medical Education and Hospitals of
the A. M A.
The prosecution has charged that
the associations "Mundt" reSolu-
ton, which recommended that all
hospital staff doctors should belong
to their local medical society, was
part of the antitrust conspiracy
against Group Health Association.
Hospital Never Penalized.
DR.. Parnell'S testimony was TO the
effect that the Rochester Hospital
refused to conform to the resolution,
but was never penalized by the A.
M. A for this refusal.
DR.. Parnall. by identifying cor
respondence and by oral testimony,
told the jury that to his surprise"
the hospital medical board had
voted against cooperating with the
A. Nj A in the matter of requiring
all their staff members to belong to
the local medical society. The hos
pital was never penalized for the
action. DR.. Parnall testified.
Dr. Heyd told the court that the
A. M. A. has no control over hos
pitfalls or their stats. He said he
knew of several hospitals in the
country which had on their stats
doctors who were not members of
their local medical societies.
Asked by defense counsel if the
"Mundt" resolution had been used
as a threat" DR.. Heyd replied:
Never"
III. o. L. c. Data Ready.
Has the Council on Medical Edu-
cation ever taken any position that
a hospital cannot be approved unless
it conforms to the 'Mundt' resolu-
tion?"
Never" the witness replied.
The defense was ready to present
a mass of documents brought to the
court yesterday by officials of the
Home Owners Loan Corp. where
the G. H. A. medical cooperative
was started.
H. o. L. C. officials submitted the
documents yesterday and they were
identified for introduction as evil
dence. They relate to the $4,000
sum the H. o. L. c. advanced for
establishing the cooperative and
lively controversy is in prospect over
their admissibility, involving the
question of legality of the use of
H. o. L. c. funds for such purpose.
Prosecutor John Henry Levin in
dictated several days ago he would
resist the introduction of the papers.
He quoted a Supreme Court decision
holding that if a boycott is proved
the legality of the victim is not in
question.
Ethics Touched On.
The first important defendant to
take the stand, DR.. William D. Cut
ter, also of the American Medical
Association, completed his testimony
yesterday. While he was on the
stand the defense read to the jury
the A. M. AS Principles of Medical
Ethics''-a controversial document in
the trial-bringing out its provisions
concerning contract practice. Two
G. H. A. doctors were brought to
trial by the District Medical Society
for violating the rules of contract
practice.
The document, as read by Mr..
Leahy. said contract practice per Sc
is not unethical except under GER
tain features. When Mr. Leahy read
a provision which described contract
practice as unethical where contract
provisions are contrary to sound
public policy" Mr.. Lewis asked if
the definition of sound public pol
ICY is left within the caprice" of
the Judicial Council of the A. M. A.
He charged the council had refused
to define sound public policy.
DR.. Cutter was not required to
answer the question.
After two medical groups and two
individual doctors got directed ver-
diets of not guilty. two medical or
ganizations-the A. M. A. and the
District Medical Society-and 10
doctors remain on trial.