Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-09-13
Licensing Doctors

Licensing Doctors
With her usual compe-
tence, Miriam Gutenberg re-
ports on a new system pro-
posed on licensing doctors.
Present law requires only one
member Of the Commission
on LicenSlre to be a medi-
cal doctor, the director of
public health. The proposed
legislation would place the
licensing of physicians pri-
marily in the hands of four
physicians recommended by
the board of the District
Medical Society, together
with the health director, ex-
ofdcio, and nonphysician
with demonstrated compe-
tence and interest in health
problems. All would be APP
pointed by the Commission
ers. 1t is claimed such
streamlining would enable
doctors to police their own
profession, speedily revoke or
suspend the licenses of doc
tors. endangering public safe
ty by crime or incompetence,
and to screen the flood of for
eign doctors using local loop
holes to obtain legal permis-
sion to practice.
There is little doubt that
present procedure in licens-
ing and revoking or sus-
pending the licenses of unde-
serving physicians is both
unfair to the public and too
favorable to the challenged
doctor. But the thoughtful
doctor will ask: Is not the
remedy proposed, treating
symptoms instead of the dis
ease? Undeniably, in grant
ing a license, professional
competence both as to skills
and personality should be
the controlling and decisive
consideration. Doctors alone
should judge these. And, in
respect to the many foreign
doctors seeking to improve
their economic status by be-
coming licensed American
doctors, the matter of merely
passing a written and oral
examination should not be
enough. Observing these for
eign doctors serving their
qualifying internship, even
sympathetic and well-wishing
American doctors are APP
palled at the inability of the
patient to understand the
foreign doctor and the for
eign doctor to understand the
patient. In large polyglot
metropolitan areas where
there are huge alien groups,
physicians speaking their
mother tongue can accom-
plish far more good than
those who only can speak
English. But here, English
speaking patients predomi-
nate and the language bar
rier is a tragic and frustrat-
ing handicap. Therefore, we
could fairly and equitably
solve the foreign doctor prob
lens if we denied internShip
"a prerequisite in addition to
credentials of approved edu-
cation) to foreign applicants
unable to understand and eff
fectively communicate with
the patient. Hospitals will
protest this rule because they
tragically will be short of in
terms But here we have a
conflict of rights. And the
right of the patient to be
served by those they under
stand SuperSedes the right
of the foreign doctor to COM
pei the patient, rather than
themselves, to overcome the
language barrier.
But giving doctors them
selves the right to revoke or
suspend the licenses of
undeserving doctors, deserves
sharp challenge. Whereas
giving a license is a direct
professional concern of doc
tors. suspending or revoking
one is baSically a judicial
procedure. The penalty here
in invoked involves considera-
tons far beyond simple
policing as contemplated. To
revoke or suspend doctors
license can mean financial
ruin. community ostracism
and disgrace. Such sanctions
should remain the preroga-
tive of the court with all the
projections and immunities
and guarantees of the judi
cial process.
Thomas E. Mattingly, MD.