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 prac- 
titioner has, in fact, exercised his professional skill with reason- 
able 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 praci- 
tioner from the Medical List, it is not unusual for grant to be 
withheld without any further hearing being allowed to the prac- 
titioner. (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 Com- 
mittee of the British Medical Association. But on the 
merits we are clearly of opinion that no grant should be with- 
held 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 ascertain- 
ing 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 Com- 
mittee 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