MAJORITY REPORT.

191

judgment to the best of his ability, his professional skill having
been, in the words of one of the witnesses, °° carefully and
properly given to the patient,” the Minister should not go into
the question whether the line of treatment which was adopted is
in accordance with any particular professional doctrine as to
what is or is not the best line of treatment in such cases. From
inquiries that we have thought it necessary to make we gather
that the Minister accepts this view and would not regard it as
part of his duty, when considering, as the Regulations require,
whether a proper standard of treatment has been given, to enter
into questions on which professional opinion might differ as to
the efficacy of particular methods of diagnosis or treatment.
This, however, is subject to the qualification stated, that the practitioner
 has, in fact, exercised his professional skill with reasonable
 care, and this appears to be a matter of which cognisance
must be taken in the exercise of the Minister's disciplinary
powers.

448. Evidence which we have heard in connexion with some
of the foregoing points has brought to our notice one matter in
respect of which the present practice appears to us to be open to
criticism. We find that in cases in which representations have
been heard by an Inquiry Committee, and the Minister, after
considering their findings, has decided not to remove the pracitioner
 from the Medical List, it is not unusual for grant to be
withheld without any further hearing being allowed to the practitioner.
 (Q. 24,000.) It has been pointed out to us that this
procedure is contemplated by the present Regulations, which
were settled after consultation with the Insurance Acts Committee
 of the British Medical Association. But on the
merits we are clearly of opinion that no grant should be withheld
 until the practitioner has heen given an opportunity,
if he wishes, of making oral representations and so of
bringing to the Minister's notice any mitigating circumstances
which in equity should be taken into consideration before any
penalty is imposed. The task of the Inquiry Committee is to
investigate definite allegations, and for the purpose of ascertaining
 the facts it is not relevant to consider whether there are
extenuating circumstances. It follows, therefore, that if the
Minister decides that the facts established by the Inquiry Committee
 do not warrant removal, but do appear to call for some
lesser penalty, a new issue arises, and considerations may
properly be taken into account which were not relevant to the
major issue of removal from the List. For this reason we think
that before any penalty other than removal is imposed, the
doctor should be given an opportunity of a further hearing. If
such an arrangement necessitates any alteration of the existing
Regulations, a point which appears doubtful (Q. 24,000), we
recommend that the necessary amendment should be made at
the first convenient opportunity ; but if the present Regulations