INDIAN MEDICAL GAZETTE.
438
JRisiiclInitcousi Jjtofisi. AGE RETIREMENT IN THE ARMY MEDICAL STAFF. It is impossible to dismiss with but a few cursory remarks the proposed scheme of extending the age retirement in the administrative ra.iks of the Army Medical Staff, seeing that the mere probability of such a retrograde step being taken is exercising the minds of the Medical Department and producing expressions of dissent and discontent. The only pretext on which age extension should be granted is that of securing the thorough efficienc}7 of the department for the actual requirements of war, foreign, and peace service; and if this end is left out of view in giving effect to the proposal, it must prove a miserable failure, and result only in a flood of agitation. It is all but inconceivable that a system?viz., that of strict selection for promotion?which has been laid down by regulation, and has been so forcibly impressed on the authorities by no less than two or more War Office Committees on medical affairs, should have been allowed, as it has been, to fall into complete desuetude for years past. Lord Herbert's Committee in 1858 expressed itself as follows on this point:?"It appears to us that an adherence to the rule of strict seniority in the lower ranks, with some exceptions to be hereafter noted, and strict selection in the upper ranks, constitute, upon the whole, the system most likely to work beneficially for the interests of the public service." Then we have Lord Camperdown's Committee in 1889 thus delivering itself:?" It is obvious that our recommendations must involve very careful selection for promotion to the higher ranks." The official regulations only emphasise these recommendations. How, then, we are irresistibly led to ask ourselves, is it that this system has become obsolete ? Is there any military authority that can tie the hands of the head of the Medical Department and hinder him when acting in accordance with the regulations, if the latter shows determination in selecting men so as to serve the best interests of the Service ? Lord Herbert's Commissioners long since observed that the promotion "to the (as it was formerly termed) inspectorial ranks? i.e., Inspectors and Deput}r Inspectors-General " of Hospitals?should be by selection for merit," and that in recommending names to the Commander-in-Chief the Director-General should state the grounds of selection. It is, then, to this failure to exercise rigid selection that the present block in the higher grades is largely attributable, aggravated doubtless by the restriction of voluntary retirement on promotion to surgeon-major-general's and surgeon-colonel's grades. Had such a restriction "
[Nov.
1894.
been placed, and selection rigidly exercised should now have had no need for age extension. A limited tenure of administrative appointments has been suggested, for, in the past, examples have not been unknown of officers serving in the administrative ranks thirteen years. In short, if changes are to take place in the Medical Department, let them be made on such conditions and with such restrictions as must tend to departmental efficiency. We can but express the hope that the pros and cons of the contemplated measure have been placed in clear and forcible language before the Secretary of State for War by the head of the Medical Department, who is not only directly responsible for the fitness of the Medical Staff for its varied duties, but is also in duty bound to study the interests of the officers serving under him. It cannot be desired that, in the future, we should have a repetition of the action forced on the Director-General 011 the outbreak of the Egyptian war, when that responsible chief had to go a considerable way down the list of his administrative officers before he could pick out one who was thoroughly fitted to occupy the position of Principal Medical Officer to the Army Corps proceeding on service.? United Service Gazette. never we
438
JRisiiclInitcousi Jjtofisi. AGE RETIREMENT IN THE ARMY MEDICAL STAFF. It is impossible to dismiss with but a few cursory remarks the proposed scheme of extending the age retirement in the administrative ra.iks of the Army Medical Staff, seeing that the mere probability of such a retrograde step being taken is exercising the minds of the Medical Department and producing expressions of dissent and discontent. The only pretext on which age extension should be granted is that of securing the thorough efficienc}7 of the department for the actual requirements of war, foreign, and peace service; and if this end is left out of view in giving effect to the proposal, it must prove a miserable failure, and result only in a flood of agitation. It is all but inconceivable that a system?viz., that of strict selection for promotion?which has been laid down by regulation, and has been so forcibly impressed on the authorities by no less than two or more War Office Committees on medical affairs, should have been allowed, as it has been, to fall into complete desuetude for years past. Lord Herbert's Committee in 1858 expressed itself as follows on this point:?"It appears to us that an adherence to the rule of strict seniority in the lower ranks, with some exceptions to be hereafter noted, and strict selection in the upper ranks, constitute, upon the whole, the system most likely to work beneficially for the interests of the public service." Then we have Lord Camperdown's Committee in 1889 thus delivering itself:?" It is obvious that our recommendations must involve very careful selection for promotion to the higher ranks." The official regulations only emphasise these recommendations. How, then, we are irresistibly led to ask ourselves, is it that this system has become obsolete ? Is there any military authority that can tie the hands of the head of the Medical Department and hinder him when acting in accordance with the regulations, if the latter shows determination in selecting men so as to serve the best interests of the Service ? Lord Herbert's Commissioners long since observed that the promotion "to the (as it was formerly termed) inspectorial ranks? i.e., Inspectors and Deput}r Inspectors-General " of Hospitals?should be by selection for merit," and that in recommending names to the Commander-in-Chief the Director-General should state the grounds of selection. It is, then, to this failure to exercise rigid selection that the present block in the higher grades is largely attributable, aggravated doubtless by the restriction of voluntary retirement on promotion to surgeon-major-general's and surgeon-colonel's grades. Had such a restriction "
[Nov.
1894.
been placed, and selection rigidly exercised should now have had no need for age extension. A limited tenure of administrative appointments has been suggested, for, in the past, examples have not been unknown of officers serving in the administrative ranks thirteen years. In short, if changes are to take place in the Medical Department, let them be made on such conditions and with such restrictions as must tend to departmental efficiency. We can but express the hope that the pros and cons of the contemplated measure have been placed in clear and forcible language before the Secretary of State for War by the head of the Medical Department, who is not only directly responsible for the fitness of the Medical Staff for its varied duties, but is also in duty bound to study the interests of the officers serving under him. It cannot be desired that, in the future, we should have a repetition of the action forced on the Director-General 011 the outbreak of the Egyptian war, when that responsible chief had to go a considerable way down the list of his administrative officers before he could pick out one who was thoroughly fitted to occupy the position of Principal Medical Officer to the Army Corps proceeding on service.? United Service Gazette. never we
