Bam W J
S Afr Med J. 1977 Nov 5;52(20):801-5.
Act 101 of 1965 replaced Act 13 of 1928 because the latter had become obsolete. Act 101 makes many new demands on and restricts certain privileges of the medical profession. New ideas, particularly if they restrict previous privileges, are resented. Also, new ideas do not necessarily denote progress. I am of the opinion that these curtailments are detrimental to public benefit. However, to provide positive suggestions to ease the situation is extremely difficult. All those concerned with public welfare should once again review public requirements. Ultimately, Act 101 prescribes for the whole population--is it then unreasonable to curtail medical professional freedom? Under the present circumstances this does not seem to be the case. However, sections of the Act may hamper doctors in the performance of their duties.
1965年的第101号法案取代了1928年的第13号法案，因为后者已过时。第101号法案对医疗行业提出了许多新要求，并限制了其某些特权。新观念，尤其是那些限制先前特权的观念，会遭到怨恨。此外，新观念并不一定意味着进步。我认为这些限制对公众利益有害。然而，要提出积极的建议来缓解这种情况极其困难。所有关心公共福利的人都应该再次审视公众需求。最终，第101号法案是为全体民众制定的——那么削减医疗职业自由是否不合理呢？在目前的情况下，似乎并非如此。然而，该法案的某些条款可能会妨碍医生履行职责。
