WE COULD wish that the doctors had made a better fight of it than they have. They began by denouncing the outrage inflicted on their great profession by the provisions of the Insurance Act. In large numbers they pledged themselves to refuse to serve on the panels on the terms imposed by the act, and then, when the moment for proving their courage came, they forgot their pledge and tamely submitted to what they had vehemently condemned as a piece of tyranny. We do not forget that, in some instances, the pressure of circumstances was almost irresistible, but we should have liked to see a little more of the martyr spirit. Even so, we cannot withhold our sympathy. They have been victimized by the author of the Insurance Act, whose treatment of the doctors, a set of men conspicuous for innumerable acts of kindness to the poor, has been marked by sheer vindictiveness. And what strikes us as the most shameful part in the whole business is the dead set that has been made by a section of the Press that glorifies the Trade Unionism of the working-man against the members of a learned profession who have employed some of the Trade Union methods for the safeguarding of their interests. The Chancellor of the Exchequer [David Lloyd George] has carried the day, so far as the formation of the panels is concerned. It still remains to be seen whether the insured will obtain the benefits they have a right to expect. It is by no means certain that the panel-system as established will have succeeded in securing the services of the best type of practitioners, but whether it has or has not the unfortunate insured person must take or leave such treatment as is provided for him out of his payments in weekly stamps.