Eight months ago I needed to see the podologist at the Paola health centre but because my case was not urgent, I was given an appointment for July 9.

When I, with many others arrived at the clinic on the appointed day, we were told that there is a union dispute and could not be seen to by the doctor. The union directive to the doctors was to only attend to repeat patients, that is those who have visited the clinic during the past 12 months, and to urgently referred cases.

Since I had visited the podology department only once – about two years ago – my appointment was automatically cancelled and I was refused to be seen by any doctor. Furthermore, I was made to register for a fresh appointment, meaning that, given the unnecessary added backlog, my next appointment will be sometime next year. Provided always that the union is still not locked in the current or any other disputes, otherwise the whole cycle will repeat itself and I will never get to see the doctor.

I will not go into the merit or otherwise of the reason for the union directives. However, I expect that when such directives are really necessary they are issued with some common sense and with minimum exasperation to the patients.

In my opinion, it would have been more appropriate and expedient if the union directive were to retain the appointments as they stood and to prioritise and reschedule more recent ones which have been registered, say, over the last three months. That way it would have been more equitable and just in the circumstances; with less disruption to patients, doctors, receptionist and clinic staff in general.