MAJORITY REPORT : RESERVATION. 
- 
fy ™~ 
benefits in various circumstances of need where such assistance 
may be desirable. We are merely concerned to point out that 
beyond a certain point such claims may become inconsistent 
with the arrangements under which society is at present created 
and continued. ven the State cannot accept, since in certain 
contingencies it might not be able to meet, an undefined liability, 
and it follows that in theory the State can only assume full respon- 
sibility for the maintenance of all within its borders, if 
simultaneously there is conceded to it a greater power of contrcl 
over the constitution of society from generation to generation 
than has ever before been considered either desirable or practic- 
able. If the State is to be a generally beneficent organisation, 
it can only be on the assumption that it has previously sanctioned 
the existence of those whose claims it is bound to honour. For 
such an assumption there is at present no warrant, and it may 
with reason be contended that unrestrained freedom in the 
individual to beget life, and communal responsibility for the 
maintenance of life, are ultimately incompatible. As before, 
we are arguing neither for one side nor the other; we are merely 
concerned to point out that certain current ideals which have 
coloured much of the evidence put before us, are inconsistent 
with the general structure of society. 
7. On a review of the evidence we cannot but feel that there 
is considerable confusion in certain quarters with regard to the 
relation which exists between the care of the individual’s health 
and the wider question of the promotion of the health of the 
community. Obviously the medical profession can give curative 
treatment. to individuals alone ; obviously also a community in 
which every individual is healthy will be a healthy community. 
It seems in consequence to be frequently assumed that by merely 
attending to the health of individuals, a healthy population will 
finally emerge. We believe this to be a profound error, and we 
are glad to be able to cite the evidence of the British Medical 
Association that the organisation of a National Health Insurance 
Scheme (which primarily relies on giving medical benefit to 
individuals) is not even probably the best means of utilising 
limited resources for the promotion of national health. We are 
also glad to be able to quote their view that *‘ the alleviation or 
cure of morbid conditions when once they have arisen’ is, 
relatively to other matters, a minor part in the campaign for 
public health. Tt is perhaps not reading too much into the 
evidence of the British Medical Association to suggest that they 
would not dissent from the view that the function of the practis- 
ing doctor in raising the general health of the nation to a higher 
level is, from a certain aspect, less important than is sometimes 
assumed. In the case of the large volume of ill-health which is 
ultimately due to environment or occupation, the doctor may 
from time to time cure the individual. But ill-health will remain 
if the causes of ill-health remain, and the fundamental problem