I refer to Francis Siah's article Good, bad and ugly of Selayang Hospital in Rentakini .

As someone who has had a personal track record of addressing similar issues and grouses of a public hospital in Malaysia since 1977, I am disturbed at Siah's complaint.

And as a consumer advocate for over three decades, I must say based on our research and experience, the surgeons at Selayang Hospital have been serving the community with compassion and dedication given the limitation of resources, thus I find the statements made in the article unkind and undeserved.

Let us look at the allegations there was a referral from Kuching General Hospital, the patient arrived but there was no ambulance at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, the dates for the operation was set but had to be postponed, doctors were said to be "too busy', "proud", had "airs about themselves".

The hospital administration was then roped in, adding to the 'unfolding drama' which is really a medical management decision that only a medical practitioner should make in the first place.

The pertinent question to ask was there a proper explanation? Since the answer to the above was in the affirmative based on the said article, why was the article still written in the 'manner and tone' it was?

I have never heard of hospital ambulances waiting anywhere, more so at KLIA unless there was an emergency referral and 'time was of the essence' and in that case perhaps, a helicopter could be better used.

Was this case an emergency? Was this communication documented between both hospitals in Kuching and Selayang? True, the date given for 'Aunty Lucy's elective operation' was Oct 3 but was it postponed due to grounds that are justifiable?

During that same period of time, were there several other emergency and trauma cases that were referred from elsewhere, which stretched the human resources available so much so the para-medical staff and the surgeons simply could not cope?

Given that it was also around a festival period (Hari Raya) when a great number of the Malay nursing staff go on leave, to perform a major surgery around that period may seem dangerous as the few nursing staff available may not be able provide optimum care, lest the patient develops complications after a major cancer surgery.

I am certain there must have been a tangible reason. So if a postponement is initiated, why must one assume this is done in bad faith?

I certainly find it totally irresponsible when one concludes that a doctor is 'proud', 'inconsiderate', or worst still having 'airs about themselves", if they fail to answer third-party queries as a logical explanation and those familiar with the surgical units and their workings know only that the surgeon in charge will be able to provide answers to decisions taken and not medical officers or worst still para-medical staff or administrators unless they have been briefed.

In my humble opinion, it may have been more appropriate to have discussed the issue with the senior surgeon/head surgeon than having had the whole episode politicised. The management of patients rests on a fine balance of trust and a good doctor-patient relationship.

Perhaps, the decision was taken to perform other more urgent cases and also the impending festive season may have resulted in many Muslim staff going on leave leaving only a skeleton number, which would be inadequate to provide the expected level of post-operative care.

To put it simply, at the end of the day, one must allow the medical practitioners to practice as they find fit in the best interest of the patient. I'm sure no clinician will make decisions that are detrimental to their patient's safety and well-being.

Using political arm-twisting, influence, spins, and pressure not only puts patients at risks but also disorientates and disillusions proactive medical practitioners in public hospitals who have put aside lucrative financial offers in the private sector to continue to serve under thankless and harsh conditions.

The writer is president, Consumers Association of Subang and Shah Alam, Selangor.