Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Oct 1972

Vol. 263 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Choice of Doctor Scheme.

38.

asked the Minister for Health if his Department have any plans for a review of the choice of doctor scheme; and, if so, when.

In accordance with the negotiated terms the scheme will become due for a joint review by my Department and the medical organisations on 1st October, 1973. In the interim period nothing in the terms will operate to prevent both sides agreeing to any adjustments to it. At this stage, with the scheme in operation outside the Eastern Health Board area for less than one month, it is too early to anticipate what adjustments, if any, may be necessary. I should say, nevertheless, that aspects of the operation of the service in the Dublin area are at present the subject of discussion between my Department, the Eastern Health Board and the medical organisations.

Have the Department given any consideration to the possibility of an educational programme for patients under the scheme?

That among other matters is being considered. There is the question of an appointment scheme in a certain area, and there is also the question of whether there will have to be an educational programme to try and reduce the enormous numbers of people who come needlessly to the doctor in certain areas, sometimes as a matter of tradition.

The Minister will agree that it is not right to throw the onus on to the doctors to tell patients how often they can come?

I myself will be largely responsible for this campaign as to when it should be necessary.

The Minister will also agree that he made a colossal blunder when he said it was 2½ visits per year. He based it on the British system.

On the contrary. I did nothing of the kind.

Of course the Minister was wrong. The figures show he was wrong.

The Medical Association and the Medical Union were consulted and they——

I know more than you realise and you know that.

——recommended too low a level.

The Minister based it on the British system and I told him two years ago he was wrong, and he has been proved wrong.

This is argument, not questions.

The Minister was proved wrong.

We agreed to a compromise.

The Minister knows he based it on 2½ visits per year.

The Deputy is completely wrong. The difference between what we said and what the medical union said has no relevance to the over-visiting by large numbers of people in the area. Neither one figure nor the other has any relevance.

The Minister said it was 2½ visits per year and the Minister was proved wrong. It is over ten visits a year. The Minister based it on the British system.

The Deputy is talking clotted nonsense.

It is on the records of the House. The Minister made a colossal blunder and he refuses to admit it.

The Deputy is talking clotted nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense and the Minister knows I am not.

What is the meaning of the expression "clatty"? That word is not in my vocabulary.

May I not use the expression "clotted nonsense"? I apologise to the House if I should not have used it.

There is nothing wrong with the expression.

I think the Minister now admits——

I am not admitting anything.

It is very difficult to get the Minister to admit anything.

On the contrary, I am one of the frankest people in the House.

Then why would the Minister not admit that he made a mistake?

Would Deputy O'Connell please cease interrupting? I am calling Question No. 39.

Barr
Roinn