Doctors' fees

Michael Asciak MP (PN) replied to my letter on doctors' fees. He avoided replying to the following point I made: "If the government no longer controls prices of goods, why should it control the minimum tariffs of services, such as doctors' fees"? I can understand his predicament in not replying to this point!

Dr Asciak referred to official tariffs published by the government in 1939. He admitted, though, that "many doctors" have ignored those tariffs for decades and are charging "what they believe to be a fair fee".

The correspondent also quoted from the Ethics of the Medical Profession, point 14 (iv), which states: "If the doctor is satisfied that the patient cannot afford the fee, no fee shall be charged". Does the honourable doctor expect fellow doctors who truly have a social conscience to conduct a means test on their patients before deciding whether to charge a low fee, a normal fee, or no fee at all?

Dr Asciak mentions lawyers and architects, hinting that members of these professions do not charge fees below the official tariff. This is simply not true! I happen to know very closely, a very good lawyer who, most of the time, does not charge any fee at all for his services. Need I mention his name too? I do not think so! I know a few other lawyers who sometimes charge less than their normal fee, or no fee at all. And they do this not only with those clients who can ill afford to pay.

What strikes me as odd is that this complaint is coming from a member of a government which, despite the provisions of Malta's Constitution regarding neutrality, which prohibits the concentration of foreign military forces and warships in our harbour, has been ignoring those provisions for many years now. To the PN government, those provisions no longer make sense.

And yet, Dr Asciak, a member of the same party and government, is much more concerned about a 1939 "official tariff", which has similarly been ignored for decades by fellow doctors!

Doctors, lawyers and architects who decide to alleviate the financial burden of their clients, particularly those in the categories I mentioned in my last letter, rather than be condemned, should instead be commended for their altruism, God bless them!