Death of service?

HOSPITALS, health centres and other institutions of the national health service exist to provide an essential public service but we must wonder how many persons employed in this sector really understand the meaning of the word service. In an area of the State adminisration where we expect the concept of service to be most conspicuously and professionally demonstrated, we find instead a level of indifference, insensitivity and even callousness that is quite depressing. Whatever the problems of our hospitals may be in terms of manpower shortage and insufficient equipment — and it is clear that Minister Imbert is moving at full speed to rectify these inadequacies — there should certainly be no shortage of basic humanitarian concern for the patients who come to these institutions expecting to receive professional treatment for their health problems.

Yet we find, for example, ailing members of the public being treated as if they were nuisances, annoyances, bothersome individuals coming to test the patience of the personnel serving at various hospital out-patient clinics. They sit on benches and wait for hours before they are attended by nurse or doctor. There seems to be no concern to expedite the process, no appreciation for the fact that these are citizens suffering from various sicknesses and the purpose of the clinic is to provide them with the treatment they need. No one offers them a word of encouragement or informs them about when the doctor will arrive or even offers an apology if he or she is particularly late. What is disheartening is the total lack of concern or empathy for fellow human beings, fellow citizens in fact, in various levels of distress; no sense of urgency to relieve them of the pain or discomfort or physical damage of their particular ailment.

One understands that conditions at our hospitals may be far from ideal, that shortages in staff and equipment may exist, but this should be no reason for professional personnel to "take it out on the patients." In any case, it is our view that persons who choose a career in the nation's health service should be motivated by a desire to ease the travail of suffering humanity; like the priesthood, it should be something of a special calling in which job satisfaction is found in halting, reversing or at least relieving the effects of disease on the human system. And this motivation should be keener in treatment of the poor who do not have the wherewithal to consult private doctors or hospitals. The people who rely on state hospital clinics are largely in that category; they have no where else to go for the medical attention they need and they should not be regarded as public nuisances. In other words, persons who decide to become doctors and nurses should not pursue such professions because they believe they can earn a comfortable living from it; they must have a basic love for humanity, for their fellow human beings and citizens. But apart from the health sector, it seems to us that the concept of service has generally lost its appeal among those who administer and provide the various services of the administration. Most public servants do not seem to regard themselves as such and are no longer prepared to go the extra mile to ensure that members of the public are well and efficiently served. This can hardly augur well for our efforts at building a nation. Service that is based on love for citizen and country is what strengthens a society. When that spirit fails, the converse applies.