Intended for healthcare professionals

Fillers One hundred years ago

The BMA from a general practitioner's point of view

BMJ 2000; 320 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7250.1660/a (Published 17 June 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;320:1660

Dr. Garrett Horder thought that the British Medical Association had not the influence it should possess. The mode of government was defective; the Presidents became Vice-Presidents and ex officio life members of the Council, and there was too great a tendency to the increase of non-representative members of Council. Their term of office ought to be limited to three years. The doings of the Council, again, were not adequately reported. Redistribution of Branches was urgently wanted, as some were a great deal too large. In London it was most difficult to gauge medical opinion, and the Lancashire and Cheshire Branch was much too large. The Branches should correspond with the Parliamentary areas. Ethical and political matters were not sufficiently dealt with, and more time should be given to the business at the annual meetings. He thought the British Medical Association might have done more to promote the following reforms: (1) To suppress quacks; (2) to support the amendment of the Medical Acts; (3) to increase the direct representation on the General Medical Council; (4) to suppress the medical aid associations. The profession was much disappointed with the General Medical Council for not making clearer at the last session of the Council their intention with regard to those who assisted the medical aid associations, after having distinctly threatened them. (BMJ 1900;i:1169.)

View Abstract

Log in

Log in through your institution

Subscribe

* For online subscription