Conduct unbecoming a surgeon

I hasten to say that reading the correspondent's report (January 25) on Anthony Zammit's contribution to the opening session of the MLP general conference left me saddened and disappointed. Only a few days ago I was allowed to express my praise for the way Prof. Zammit handled the difficult medical and public relations problems posed by his patient Alfred Sant. I stood up for him, for his reticence and respect for his patient's wishes in the face of what I thought was unfair criticism. I regarded him as a doctor acting in line with the highest ethical standards of the medical profession.

He has now chosen to throw all this credit to the winds by mixing what is expected as ethical behaviour in a doctor with what is permissible in a political party candidate addressing a party caucus.

In his brief, brash speech he succumbed to the temptation of making political capital by adopting a triumphalist tone in matters regarding the surgical treatment of cancer when as a mature surgeon he should know that surgery is often a humbling experience. Moreover, he chose to drag into his regretful speech the medical story of an ex-Prime Minister, to which he was completely extraneous, attributing to this public persona unworthy motives in the choice of his medical treatment when he should have known this to be a travesty of the truth. Indeed he owes this person a public apology.

I have felt for a long time that the mixing of the roles of consultant in the public medical service with that of candidate of a political party for election to Parliament was undesirable, being against the public many ways. The conflict of interest exemplified in the behaviour of Prof. Zammit should make one realise that the step taken some years ago to make this dual role permissible was a retrograde measure adopted in the interests, at that time, of a handful of medical specialists cum party politicians.

Perhaps the time is opportune for a review of the regulations.