Tuesday, July 31, 2007 Cabaero: Patient’s rights By Nini B. Cabaero Beyond 30
HEALTH is personal. It cannot get any more personal than if one had to take a trip to the doctor or to the out-patient department of a hospital.
When a government auditor found some questionable dealings at the regional hospital, it was personal for the thousands of patients who at one time or another sought medical help there.
Lawyer Eva Cabrera, then a newly-assigned auditor when she discovered the irregularities at the Vi-cente Sotto Memorial Medical Center (VSMMC), said the violations of audit rules were “so blatant” they were probably difficult to ignore.
Among her discoveries was the practice of some VSMMC personnel to endorse patients to private clinics for their laboratory tests when the examinations could have been done at the government facility at less cost.
The suspicion was that hospital personnel enjoyed a share of the proceeds of the private clinics.
There was also the matter of purchases made without bidding and some equipment left inoperable and the way a hospital dormitory was being run. An investigation is being conducted into the auditor’s findings and the Office of the Ombudsman has entered the picture.
But it’s more than just the alleged violations of administrative rules and anti-graft laws because what could have been sullied here was the bigger law on the constitutionally-enshrined right of the people to health. Section 15 of Article 2 on the declaration of principles and state policies of the 1987 Constitution says the State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people.
Patients have the right to receive emergency care when needed. Yet there was this man who the auditor found at the hospital’s emergency room who was suffering and full of complaints about how he was given the runaround the day before by hospital personnel despite his distress and about how he was at first sent to a private laboratory where he couldn’t afford the expense.
He went to the government hospital because that was what he could afford, yet he was sent to a private facility instead.
Patients have the right to receive complete information about the diagnosis, the medicine and, if possible, cheaper and affordable alternatives. They have the right to participate in all decisions and should not merely be directed to a particular laboratory, especially outside the hospital and without justification, as this opens the door to abuse and situations of conflicts of interest.
It’s not just about a government office failing to comply with financial protocols and ignoring auditing rules. It’s not simply about underpaid government doctors trying to get some extra income from a share of the proceeds of a supplemental private facility.
It’s about patient’s rights being violated. That’s the real anomaly.
