A shocking plan by nurses to intensify industrial action in state hospitals as from Monday has now been suspended as talks between their union and the government have started again in a bid to find a solution to a string of complaints. With good reason, many had considered the union's plan as outrageous.

Nurses may have good reason to protest over the government's attitude but taking action that hits patients and, worse, that could even put lives in danger, is simply unacceptable. If, as the union's president has said, the fight is against the government, not the patients, it should always first exhaust every available remedy in an effort to find a solution before even thinking of taking action. And even when such efforts fail, the union should preferably seek to put pressure on the government in ways that would avoid hitting patients. It could have sought the support of other unions, for example.

Winning the people's sympathy and support to their cause might have gone a long way towards forcing the government to seriously reconsider their outstanding claims. But as the situation stood before the union suspended the industrial action yesterday, the nurses, and the union in particular, were earning the wrath, not the sympathy, of the people.

Hopefully, the suspension of the industrial action and the start of talks would now lead to an agreement that would put the nurses' minds at rest over their claims. This was the most sensible route to take as intensification of the industrial action would have led to unnecessary suffering.

In one directive the union had, very unwisely, instructed nurses working in operating theatres to take their breaks on time. This would have surely led to the suspension of operations because no surgeon is likely to risk operating on a patient in the knowledge that half way through his work the nurses may simply walk out of the theatre. Equally very disturbing was the directive given to nurses working at the hospital's renal unit to stop being on call.

Hospital superintendent Frank Bartolo left no doubt as to what this would have implied: "This is playing with human lives. We always have people at the intensive therapy unit who might need urgent renal dialysis". Was the union really prepared to go this extent in support of its claims?

One major complaint is over a shortage of nurses. The government has said that it employed 122 nurses this year and admitted that this was not enough to meet the demand. On its part, however, the union has accused the government of not honouring a commitment made last year to increase the number. It claims that nurses who had left the job, or who had retired, and wanted to return, were finding the doors closed. If this is correct, the government would need to seriously reconsider its stand in order to meet the present need for their services.

The deadlock between the two parties was broken yesterday after Social Policy Minister John Dalli said he had been prepared to meet the union for talks if it first lifted the industrial action, as is normal procedure in such cases. The minister was marking the first anniversary of the move to the new hospital. The union accepted his invitation, suspended the action and the two parties had their first meeting in the morning. They now plan to meet again next week.

Nurses have every right to defend their interests but they would need to think twice before taking action that hits patients.