To defend the BMA by saying (Aug 21, p 392) that no organization is perfect but, so long as it acts in good faith and with courage, it can withstand criticism recalls Mr. Churchill’s remark about our pre-war Government — that it is a fine thing for a Prime Minister to be honest but an important thing for a Prime Minister to be right. Was the BMA right in refusing to allow any discussion of terms of service during the past six years? It has been obvious for all of that time that sooner or later the BMA would offer the services of the profession to the country. When any of us is going to sell something important his first step is to get an opinion of what it is worth: satisfactory negotiation is impossible otherwise. The BMA had a real duty to find out what value the profession put on its services. The evidence given to the Spens Committee would pretty certainly have been affected by such information. It is a doubtful argument to say that a majority of practitioners have approved the Spens Report. A majority of practitioners opposed the health service in the second plebiscite, but the minority view was adopted then. Anyhow, if the BMA had put discussion of terms on divisional agendas years ago it would have been in a far better position to appreciate the difficulties of what it regards as a minority now, instead of spending six years on principles, of which it evolved seven, or slightly more than one principle per annum. I challenge any reader to write down at once those principles (if he remembers them), to reflect on how many have proved essential, and to say that they justify six years of planning committees and executive, divisional, representative, and council meetings. So far as the health service goes no other result emerged. W A Bourne, Sussex. (Letter, 4 September 1948, p 499. See also editorial by Gordon Macpherson, 3 January 1998, p 6.)
. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1201.