CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLAGE VELLORE

...WHEN AUNT IDA BEGINS TO WEEP !!

( PART- I )

There is usually an additional nose with some people. This is not visible. But it works strongly. Its one of the several features is that the person who owes it cautiously feels, time & again, that it has been cut. Once it is so cut it automatically reappears for being cut the next time. And the process goes on. This author can’t raise any objection with the people having such kind of noses nor she has any say towards their being felt cut. What she concerns is that this 'feeling' should not be given birth to without some reasonable reason. This 'feeling' is seen in abundance now-a-days in a section of doctors belonging to CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, VELLORE (TAMILNADU, INDIA) & has widely spread among other staff-members as well.

" Not to be ministered unto but to minister " is the biblical motto that was given to this institution by its founder Dr. Ida Sophia Scudder, a great soul of the last century. This author rigorously asked the meaning of this motto to many of the CMC-people (including doctors). Yet, to her utter surprise, nobody could give a satisfactory answer. She feels that CMC-people have started preferring their personal ego, ease, unjust & bias over their basic duty to serve the mankind --- contrary to the spirit of the said motto, the one for that Aunt Ida sacrificed whole of her life. She firmly believes that nothing but the lack of proper teaching / training about this motto in the special context of Dr. Ida's vision to mankind is the one & only reason behind this newly developing trend. It remains, however, a possibility that certain administrative-policies come in their way as hindrance. Even then, she opines, the lack of proper understanding about this motto among those of the policy-makers is the root cause of the same.

To put forth a symbolic example cited from many ones :

• Mrs. X got an appointment of Dr. Siddharth Dikshit towards her eye-examination on 21.01.08.
• Time fixed for this appointment was 10:20 AM & Mrs. X was ‘to report’ the concerned authority 1/2 an hour before the appointment time. She was also to note that a full eye examination may take 3 to 4 hours.
• Mr. Y (husband of Mrs. X) similarly got an appointment of the same doctor on similar guidelines simply with a difference in the appointment-time that was 11:00 AM.
• Mrs. X got another appointment the same day in the Dental Department (doctor's name not specified) & the reporting-time was 7:30 AM.
• Likewise Mr.Y got another appointment the same day in Urology Department (for Dr. Karthikeyan A) & the reporting-time was 10:30 AM.

In event of such a situation where no guidelines, through any of the sources, are provided to the outpatients (coming from distant places in & outside the country) that they should not get any appointment in any other department if they seek an appointment in the Opthalmology Depart- ment, can such acts of Mrs. X & Mr. Y be held wrong ?

Now, let us discuss what happened to them. As three to four hours were to be required in the Opthalmology Department they chose to get their work done first in other departments i.e. in the Dental Department & the Urology Department respectively. It was however the priority which they gave to the process of 'reporting' in the Opthalmology Department quite in time (through a representative) & anticipated they would be able to get their turn (of being examined by the doctor) in normal course - as there were a number of people already gathered in a long queue. And even in case of missing their normal turn they were sure to get an alternative turn before the queue came to an end. This was because they had earned similar experience during their several works in CMC (main hospital). So, after finishing their work at both the departments they arrived at the Opthalmology Deptt. The officer on duty with whom the 'reporting' was made was still discharging his duties (before Room No. 6) & had not packed up. Patients were still being examined one after another. The said officer took them to the doctor (sitting in Room No.6) who asked them why they had arrived late. They narrated the truth & regretted for their arriving late in the prevailing circumstances. The very next moment they got stunned as, beyond their expectation, the doctor bluntly refused to examine them. They made polite requests but all in vain. Ultimately, being disappointed, they requested him to postpone the appointment-date to his suitability. Again the doctor threw them the same refusal. What he was repeatedly uttering in anger, at short intervals, was in fact a kind of accusation, " Why did you go to CMC (the main hospital) ? Why did you take any other appointment there if you had an appointment here (at the eye-hospital) ? I am not responsible for your loss. Why should I postpone the date when I am not at fault ? However, I have no objection if the officer at the cash-counter postpones the same. You may contact him. " As advised, they requested the cash-officer (at counter no. 4) & were refused by him too. Then, they sought help from the secretary who contacted someone (perhaps the doctor concerned) on telephone. She (the secretary) then advised them to wait before Room No. 9. This consoled them & made them presume that some other doctor, belonging to Room No. 9, would call them for examination. It was only after sometime that they noticed the room was devoid of any doctor. On enquiry, someone present in the room responded that he was aware of their matter & that they should meet the doctor available in Room No. 10 instead. While following his advice they waited before Room No. 10 till all the patients in queue were duly examined. Then they entered the room & found, with a bit surprise, it was the same doctor – discharging his duty this time in another room. Nothing could have been expected from him afresh but the refusal. Notably, there was sufficient time in his hand towards examining them.

The author feels, even if he was not in good mood for certain human nature or was tired, he could have postponed the appointment- date at the least. But he would not do it. He would not do it because, as was apparent, he felt his 'ego' was hurt. Why his ego was so felt hurt is a matter of research & the patients in question could not give any explanation. They had not deliberately done anything which might hurt him. However, they conceded they had raised certain questions pertaining to their right. Keeping those in mind this author wants to put a few questions before the competent authorities of CMC :

• Is there any specification or advice or instruction meant for outpatients through any of the sources (particularly through the 'GUIDE' - a helping book sold at the RECEPTION -COUNTER) that they should not take any appointment in CMC (main hospital) if they take an appointment in its Eye-Hospital ?
• Why is there a trend among the doctors to behave with them as if they have committed some criminal offence by taking appointment the same day (yet at different times) in CMC (main hospital) ?
• Why is there a smell of jealousy among the people of this hospital with their counterparts of CMC (main hospital) ? Inferiority / Superiority Complex ?
• When the time allotted to some patient is duly utilised by allotting the same to some other patient (in the event of his absence at the allotted time) there is virtually no loss of time at the doctor's part. It is never that the doctors sit idle waiting for the patient till the full length of the allotted time. Can the doctor take a vow in the name of God that he really wasted the time that was allotted to those patients - waiting ? If not, was this not his moral obligation, at the least, to postpone their appointment-date ? Does everybody not know, apart from what the doctors usually say & take defence in such cases, what the reality is ?
• The call of natural justice is that one must not pay any cost for such services one has not received. In the cited case the service was neither received by the purchaser nor rendered by the service-provider. Nor even the service was frustrated i.e. the time wasted. And quite remarkably, the purchasers of the service were engaged in some other branches of the same parental institution. On this score too, was this not ethical on the doctor's part to examine the patients ? Or to postpone their appointment-date at the least ?
• Once a schoolgirl had decided to get trained in medical education with a view to render her services to the vast majority of illiterate women whose husbands would not allow the male doctor's services upon them. The significance of the said schoolgirl's vision was that she wanted to serve them on their own terms i.e. the male doctors would not serve upon them. Then she got herself educated & became a doctor so that she, being a female doctor, could treat the dying women. What a great vision indeed ! And she never aimed to earn money. Nor she ever wanted name or fame. What she wanted was purely the service to mankind. Had that schoolgirl, later known as our Aunt Ida, ever thought that one fine day the institution she established would start behaving as an usurer & use unjust arguments in order to refuse services to the needy ones even after receiving the proper (not subsidized) charges ?
• Being a doctor is definitely a big thing. Doctors are highly honoured in our society. Most of the people regard them next to God. What does it mean ? Does it mean that the remaining people are merely idiots or fools who do not (& can not) possess learned qualities ? And that they do not deserve to be treated in a respectful manner ? Some doctors, unfortunately, possess such mental pattern in this regard that can be held as negatively developed. And what behavior may be expected from such doctors if certain justifiable arguments from the side of patients are put before them ? ..... .......This is the very stage where a doctor's 'ego' seems to have been hurt. Is this not similar to possessing an additional unvisible nose which is unnecessarily felt, off & on, to have been cut ?
• Just because the doctors of CMC have huge vested powers or because this institution as a whole is of excellent repute, should this be at their liberty to forfeit the hard-earned money of common people ? Does this argument bear any substance that such forfeited amount will be utilised for the poorer people ? Did Aunt Ida ever want that the tears of a weeping man should be wiped off by making another man weep ?
• Why is it felt that as senior someone is (irrespective of gender or cadre), more generous & more humanitarian his attitude towards the common man is ?
• In this electronic-era when information technology has been reaching newer heights daily, can some electronic arrangement not be made which may enable the concerned officers not to give such appointment to anybody which may coincide with appointment in EYE-HOSPITAL ? (Say, through computers connected with INTRANET ?)

The patients in question are wonderfully satisfied with the quality of treatment, reasonability of charges and affectionate & co-operative attitude of almost every senior doctor & other senior working staff. There is no reason to believe that the patients had any kind of bias for anybody in the hospital.

The further details of the patients are reserved with the author for all practical purposes & the disclosed ones are with a view to give opportunity to the concerned authorities towards their introspection.

This author appeals the authorities to make more effective policies in order to bring this institution to newer heights on the world- map & do not let Aunt Ida weep upon the misdoings of her fellow-persons at any cost.

( ...to be continued.)

.................... Savitree
( at Vellore on a study-tour )