190

MAJORITY REPORT.

but as affecting the Minister's exercise of his powers under the
existing Regulations were as follows : (1) that when a complaint
has been dealt with by the bodies set up by the Regulations for
this purpose there should not be a liability to have the whole
matter re-opened by separate Departmental action either by the
Ministry itself or by those bodies at the instigation of the
Ministry ; (2) that when the complaint has been made in one
prescribed form penalties should not be inflicted in respect of
offences not formally alleged or of offences which, if alleged,
should have been formulated in a different prescribed way, and
might have required a different line of defence; (3) that full consideration
 should be paid to the findings or recommendations of
a committee (whethér Medical Service Sub-Committee, or
Inquiry Committee) which has itself investigated the details of
the case, in mitigation of the heinousness of the misconduct even
when proved; (4) that it is essential to draw a strict distinction
between professional conduct in the attention given to a patient
and the nature of the exact professional treatment given to the
patient, and that the propriety of any particular method or line
of treatment should not be made the subject of investigation in
connexion with the insurance service. (App. XLVII, 42.)
446. The Association submitted these principles, we gather, as.
a result of their consideration of particular cases recently
dealt with by the Ministry. Details of those cases
were not placed before us, and we are not, therefore,
in a position to express any opinion as to how far the
action of the Ministry may be open to criticism in the
directions indicated. Moreover, it is difficult to express
an opinion on the validity of some of these propositions without
reference to particular cases, since they are stated in a form which
is capable of various interpretations, and a general assent or
dissent might be misleading. As regards the first point, we
understand that the question arose in connexion with a particular
case which came before the Lord Chief Justice, when this precise
point was one of those on which the action of the Minister was
challenged, and the Lord Chief Justice held that the Minister's
action was perfectly proper. As to the expediency, as distinct
from the legality, of such action, it appears to us that much may
depend on the circumstances of particular cases, and the matter
was not placed before us by the Association in sufficient detail to
enable us to express an opinion as to the cases in which such an
exercise of the Minister's powers might, or might not, be entirely
desirable.

447. The fourth point is the one which the witnesses of the
Association stated that they regarded as gravest and most vital.
(Q. 15,220.) This proposition also appears to be one to which an
unqualified assent might be open to misinterpretation. We agree
that where it appears that a practitioner has exercised his