Imágenes de páginas

rightly; and if a new Branch was suggested in any particular district he might naturally think that the interests which he was bound to support would be encroached upon. Therefore he thought that this Report should be considered by a small Committee of this Board that that might not occur. It could then go back to the Branches and there would be no great delay.

Mr. BROOKS failed to understand the purpose of Mr. Norman Bennett's proposition. He did not think that as representatives of the Branches they should have their minds biassed. He thought that their decisions were for the benefit of the Association and not of Branches. It was so in his own case. The Committee had really done their very utmost to satisfy the claims of districts, and he thought they had fairly satisfactorily done that. As to the Report, he thought that it should be discussed, not by the Board, but by the Committees of the various Branches, and for that reason he seconded the proposition. He did not think that any very large benefit would be gained by referring the Report to another Sub-committee of the Board.

Mr. REES PRICE thought that it might facilitate discussion, at any rate in the Branch in which he was interested, if they could have the mind of the Committee as regards this matter. Did he understand that it was to be a permanent crystallisation of the Society? Did it mean that if they wanted to form half a dozen Branches in Scotland they were prevented doing so, because that was a question which would naturally arise at any discussion at a Branch Meeting, and he thought that it would be well, if this matter was to go before the Branches, if that matter was put in a clear way to the members. If this was to be a permanent crystallisation there would be, in Scotland, certainly, a considerable objection. As it stood, it seemed to him it was proposed to divide the Association into ten or eleven districts permanently.

The PRESIDENT took it that that would come up on the question of the Revision of Articles and Bye-laws. Power could always be taken for a Branch to subdivide or to increase the Branch area. Scotland might divide itself into


Mr. REES PRICE then suggested that the matter should be clearly put in anything that was sent down to the Branches, because it might raise a difficulty.

Mr. REINHARDT, as a member of that Committee, and also as representing the Southern Counties Branch, said that he approached the question from an Association point of view, considering what would be best for the Association. According to the bye-laws under which they worked at present, any division of Branches or formation of Branches must come from within. According to his recollection of the bye-laws as they stood, it was simply necessary to find a sufficient number of men to form a Branch; and it was with that idea that he approached the question, and he thought it was so with the other members of the Committee. They recommended this, but it was subject to the acceptance of the members individually. They could not compel men to belong to any Branch.

Mr. HEADRIDGE said he happened to be in the Chair when the Report was finally adopted, but the Chairman of this Board could, he thought, probably more efficiently put before the meeting the reasons that guided them in the deliberations, as he presided over all the meetings. They approached it solely in the interests of the Association, as best they could, and considered many questions-questions of railway facilities, county area, and the already existing area of Branches, and, as impartially as they could, they discussed it, and

arrived at the resolutions embodied in the Report. As far as he could judge, he thought that it was an expression of the majority of the Committee.

The PRESIDENT then put the resolution: "That the Report be received, that it be sent to the Secretary of each Branch, and that he be requested to bring it before the Branch Council, and communicate to the Honorary Secretary of the Association the opinion and wishes of the Branch Council in the matter, on or before February 28, 1903.”

The motion was carried.


On the nomination of the Publishing Committee, Messrs. A. W. W. Baker and W. A. Maggs were elected to fill the seats on the Committee, vacant by the appointment of Mr. Coffin to be Editor, and by the resignation of Mr. Matheson.


Mr. HARDING said he attended as a delegate at the meeting of the Interdational Dental Federation at Stockholm, in conjunction with the other members. He could not give any information with regard to the organisation and management of the International Federation. That was done by a Committee. The Committee divided the members attending the Federation into two sections. One section was appointed to attend the section on hygiene and State dentistry; the other formed a section to consider the question of education. The questions had been propounded for the Committee to consider at a previous meeting-he thought either at Paris or Cambridge, but he was not certain which. He was placed on the Education Committee, why, he could not tell, as he was not engaged in teaching ; but he took great interest in the proceedings of the Committee. Dr. Brophy was in the Chair, and he (Mr. Harding) had here the resolutions that were come to ; if the members would like to hear them he would read them, as they were not long. There were three questions: one referring to preliminary education, a second referring to the period of study, and the third as to what part of the general medical curriculum should be included in the dental curriculum. The question of preliminary educa· tion occupied more time and discussion than any of the others, and it was adjourned from the first day to the last because the Committee could not come to a definite decision. The difficulty was to fix a standard that should satisfy all countries that were represented. There were about thirteen or fourteen countries represented. After a good deal of discussion the following resolution was eventually come to: "That the requirements shall be the same that are required of students in medicine or law in those countries where the schools are under the control of the Government, or the equivalent of such requirements in countries where such control does not exist; such equivalent to be decided by the Minister of Public Instruction." The difficulty with regard to this was that in some countries, especially in America, some of the medical schools grant diplomas on a very illusory form of preliminary examination, and at the instance of Dr. Brophy and Dr. Eugene Smith, the Dean of Harvard, the second part of this clause was inserted. The period of study agreed to was four years, of which two years at least must be spent in attending a full course of instruction in a dental school. The medical subjects to be included in the dental curriculum that formed part of the course should be physics, chemistry

and metallurgy, anatomy, histology, physiology and physiological chemistry, bacteriology, materia medica and therapeutics, general pathology, general surgery, physical diagnosis, and special medicine and surgery. He should like to bear testimony that the tone of the meeting was excellent. The endeavour of all the members who attended and spoke at this meeting was to raise the standard of professional education, and the difficulty arose in fixing a standard that should not be evaded in various countries. Many of the delegates agreed to the first part of the clause referring to preliminary education, but Dr. Brophy, from the Chair, protested against its being accepted in that form, and pointed out that, though the standard of medical schools in America was generally good, there were schools that were granting diplomas that were not anything like up to standard, and that some clause must be inserted to prevent that loophole. He would like to say, before he sat down, that he regretted very much to see in the Journal a reprint from a Chicago paper. He could not say what authority there was for supposing that Dr. Brophy was in any way connected with the production of that in the Chicago paper. He had many conversations with Dr. Brophy, and he could not but think that it was entirely contrary to his wishes and his tone, and unless there was some clear evidence, he, for one, could not accept it. He was exceedingly pained to see it. Whichever way it was looked at, it was painful with regard to a man who, one believed, was doing his utmost to maintain the high standard of the profession. If it was owing to the ubiquity of American journalists that it was put in, he said that it was a great pity, and it became a slander upon him. He should like to mention also that Mrs. Brophy was not at Stockholm. He could not say whether there was a communication by letter from the King, but King Oscar also was not in Stockholm at the time of the meeting.

Mr. CANTON would like to say that he had seen the Chicago paper with the portrait in it, and it was one of the most disgraceful productions he had seen for a long time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM was unfortunately unable to be present to hear what his colleague who went to Stockholm had said, but the delegates who went to Stockholm were extremely pleased with the meeting there. Next, he would say, with regard to the Federation movement, that Mr. Harding, as the principal representative there, received a good reception and met with favour, and he was sure that a great deal of good was done by the President going so far. He understood that some allusion had been made to certain letters which appeared in the last number of the Journal of the Association. He deplored the fact that they should ever have been admitted into the Journal at all. The suggestion was that Dr. Brophy and Dr. Harland were responsible for the paragraphs which had appeared in the Chicago Daily News. He trusted that the gentlemen more immediately concerned would be conscious of their own rectitude and would have an adequate reply. He was quite convinced that if time had been given for an answer from the other side the answer would have been satisfactory. He could not imagine that Dr. Brophy would be capable of appropriating to himself, as he apparently did in this communication to the Chicago Daily News, the fact that the President of the Federation Society and his wife did give an evening reception at the Grand Hotel, and Dr. Brophy did not, and certainly there was no Mrs. Brophy present. Secondly, with regard to the statement about King Oscar. It was absolutely untrue, and he

was sure that Dr. Brophy, being intimately acquainted with the message that did come from King Oscar, would not have so misrepresented it as he is made to do. King Oscar sent a message to the assembly, and said nothing about any individual man. With regard to the other letter. At the end it said that Dr. Brophy had been re-elected President, and closed the Congress with one of his celebrated operations. He did nothing of the kind, and more, Dr. Brophy is not the President of the International Federation, but Dr. Godon of Paris. So there was internal evidence from these two letters. They did not appeal to him at all. He might say that the title of the article was, "The Press and the Profession." In this instance he thought the professional press had made some mistake. As to another matter. Supposing that those letters were genuine and emanated from Dr. Brophy on the one hand, and Dr. Harland on the other, was that a question for the Association? Was it not rather a question of domestic policy? They might be perfectly sure that, if their American colleagues were assured that Dr Brophy and Dr. Harland had done such a thing, they would have been taken to task by their own colleagues in their own land. He was convinced with regard to that statement, and he thought that that was a good line to take. He was content to remain one of those blind infatuated persons who, on the plea of internationality, fraternise with dentists such as Dr. Brophy and Dr. Harland.

Mr. NORMAN BENNETT would like to say that the statement which appeared was a letter to the Association, and it was published as such under the words stating that the Publishing Committee did not hold themselves responsible for it one way or the other.

The PRESIDENT thought that the thanks of the Board were due to Mr. Harding and Mr. Cunningham for acting as delegates, and for their attendance at Stockholm. He moved that the thanks of the Board be accorded to those two gentlemen.

Mr. SPOKES said the President of the Association told them that he did not ascertain anything with regard to the constitution of the Federation. Would he just say in one word whether he made any enquiry as to what the constitution was?

Mr. HARDING said he made no enquiry and had no opportunity.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM: The Constitution of the Federation was published. He believed that it had been sent to the Journal of the Association. Next he would say that there was a very interesting article in the last number of L'Odontologie from Dr. Gilman, of Geneva, in which he described very fully what the objects and purposes of the Federation were. Next, there was a very excellent article in one of the American journals in which the writer measured out the whole aspect of the circumstances for the information of practitioners on the other side. Of course it took a long time before a movement of this kind acquired all that confidence which the speaker believed it merited, but something more might be done, and he would suggest, in the presence of the Journal Committee, that if they could do anything more to unite the American profession with themselves they should do so. He should very much like to say that the Association could become at once a member of the International Dental Federation. Next, the question of subscription. At the present moment individuals had to pay for others who were not present-they had a kind of double expense; and it would help very much if that Association and any of the Associations or any school co-operated and joined in the Federation.

If any member wanted to know what the Constitution was he could go to Dr. Sauvez, but they must take it that information had been sent to this country as it had been to other countries.

Mr. SPOKES asked whether they were to understand from the last speaker that it would be possible for the Association to nominate a member of the Committee? Could they be represented on the Committee which divided the members up and arranged who should attend particular meetings?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM: That is the Council.

Mr. SPOKES: Was it possible for an outside Association to become represented on that Council?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM believed that they as an Association participated in the International Dental Congress. He could only say that the Congress at Paris elected a Council of nine, and elected them for a definite purpose until the next Congress, and they were, as it were, the Executive acting with responsible duties that were defined for them. First of all, the only definite duty that was assigned to them was the appointment of a Committee of Education, and power was given to them of appointing their Committees or Commissions as they called them, and finally, certain resolutions that were passed at the last General Meeting in Paris were allocated to them to be carried out. With regard to the possibility of adding to it, there was a possibility of adding what they called a cojoint member, and the speaker believed at Stockholm a member from Russia was appointed as a cojoint member of the Council. The Council themselves decided that they had no power to alter in any way the instruction given by the last International Dental Conference, and the Constitution would not be finally or permanently arranged until the next International Dental Congress.

Mr. SPOKES did not wish to continue that conversation much longer, but would like to know whether the Association was now held to be in some way represented on the Council by virtue of that Constitution at Paris at which they were now told that the Association was at all events represented.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM said that was a question which he would not take upon himself to answer. It was a question which he was propounding to the Council


Mr. SPOKES apologised to the Board for intruding in this way, but he was only anxious as far as possible to get a little information on the matter.


The following resolutions of the Southern Counties Branch, passed on June 21, were submitted :

"That this Meeting of the Southern Counties Branch of the British Dental Association, being fully convinced of the necessity of additional legislation to prevent the practice of dentistry by unregistered persons, respectfully request the Representative Board to consider the matter at an early date, and suggest that a Committee of Enquiry be appointed to report what legislation is necessary, and to make suggestions as to the best means of influencing public opinion in favour of such legislation."

Mr. MORGAN HUGHES said that he had hoped that in introducing his resolutions he might have taken it for granted that the Board as well as the Southern Counties Branch were fully convinced of the necessity of additional legislation to prevent the practice of dentistry by unregistered persons, and that the discussion might be confined to the probability or otherwise of the

« AnteriorContinuar »