Chatoorgoon should refuse post of Hospital Director

THE EDITOR: I certainly do not envy my colleague Anand Chatoorgoon today. Having publicly espoused his moral position vis-?-vis the primacy of ‘seniority’ as a criterion for appointment both as Departmental Head and as Hospital Chief of Staff (HCS), his inner conflict at his recent ‘promotion’ must be tumultuous. He has been gifted with this dubious advancement to the chagrin of colleagues more senior than himself.

If his elevation to the post of HCS leaves us in wonder, the manner in which that post was made available is cause for even greater consternation. For here it is that a Permanent Secretary, presumably under advice from his Minister, in contravention to a previous ruling handed down by the COP, issues a demand that a public servant take “compensatory leave” against the latter’s wish. Hitherto, as far as I am aware, all public servants were even debarred from availing themselves of compensatory days. This certainly has no prior precedent. Hence, in response to the whimsical notion that the Chiefs of staff at both major hospitals are harbouring political motives, they are sent on leave illegally. Reminds me of Fidel Castro’s recent response to that country’s opposition party’s objection to his government. Drs Trinidade and Mahabir are “dissidents”.

Back to my friend Anand Chatoorgoon: I have said before, and will perhaps always repeat that man virtually always acts out of enlightened self-interest. Here is a colleague who, through his absolute conviction that “due process” was not followed in the appointment of his colleague in anesthetics, junior to himself, to the post of Head of Department of Anesthesia, actually took the matter to the courts so as to resolve it. Dr Chatoorgoon won! He was appointed Head of the Hospital’s Anesthetic Department! He has publicly heaped vilification on the heads of colleagues during this present impasse. He has invoked the very essence of all his religious fervour and Eastern religious moral suasion in the righteous indignation spewed out at colleagues at Hospital. Money, greed, ...these are our motives. Alas, he has forgotten self-exaltation, and the acquisition of honour. Are these not as pernicious as the lust for money? He forgot all too soon that each of us has a “peccatum originale,” an original defect or an inherent ‘weakness’ if you will, that fuels the turbines of our self-interest, that ignites that point of sweet gratification when we think that we have done a ‘good work.’ While he has accused us of being greedy for money, I am given to asking myself whether he might be just as greedy, not for money, but for an exalted position or a place of honour among his peers, If he is, then he should have seen the beam in his own, before showing us the mole in our eyes.

I feel that my friend Anand has been too swiftly caught up in the jubilation of the moment, to the extent that he has failed to reflect on a few sobering if not potentially self-destructive vital issues. First, with the deep sense of dispassion that he extols, I invite him to withdraw into solitude so as to ponder the following:
* Was Austin Trinidade’s expulsion from his post effected in a just and fair manner?
* Does your subsequent appointment to that post Anand, pay tribute to a sense of “fairness” and respect for natural justice?
* Are you happy in your conscience, that your appointment was effected by ‘decree,’ with no opportunity afforded any of your colleagues who are more senior to you?
* Were your words empty and without sincerity, when you publicly admitted that there are senior colleagues who by virtue of the very principle of “seniority,” ought first to be offered the post of Medical Chief of Staff before you?
* Does your religion sanction such an odious offence against justice?
* Does your religion not teach that the Law of God supercedes that of man?

Well Anand, it’s your call! The just man, the hesycast, a truly Holy man might just resolve the issue by having recourse to moral and spiritual principles. In response to the six issues posed above:
* He should refuse this empty promotion since it has been wrought at his brother’s expense, and his brother has done no wrong!
* He would register with those who propose to offer to him this empty chair, his disgust at the thirty pieces of silver they hand to him, in their attempt to buy his soul; for truly, if he accepts their post, he will be forever in their debt!
* he would insist that for his appointment to be meaningful, it must occur through due process; they insult his integrity with such an offensive show of unilateral power.
* He should have regretted his vilification of his colleagues for their greed, and their lust for money and material things; for in relinquishing his newfound post, he would have showed that he is above the seeking of his own self-exaltation.
* All that is just and moral in his religion cries out in disgust I am sure, at the reprehensible display of his earthly masters who lord it over their subjects;
* He would resolve to relinquish the post of Hospital Director and refuse their empty prize, since their ‘regulation’ and legalism do not bind him to obeying a dictate that offends against justice itself.

Had I been in Anand’s pair of shoes, I would certainly know that failure to follow the route outlined above, would render all previous exhortations of acetic principle, nothing but empty hollow words, full of noise but without substance! Further, he would have deprived himself of the moral authority to dispense the duties of that office. I tell you now, that as an individual, I will consider null and void, any directive issued from his office as the post he holds lacks the force of both its legal and moral authority. The ball is in your court Anand!

DR STEVE SMITH
Port-of-Spain