The doctor-attendant tussle points to something deeper

You hear the raging sound of a bullet - it hits you straight in the heart, sparking worrisome public speculation. Another bullet passes by, sparing you physically but leaving behind traumatic chills, again stirring public speculation, though of a different kind.

When a man slapped a doctor recently, it was open, visible, and disgusting. What the doctors later succumbed to, that was invisible, passive, and perhaps moderate. The only difference that remains between the two is the intensity and frequency of the bullets and the time and place of choosing.

First things first, handling emergencies is overwhelming, especially in Kashmir. It’s not easy to attend to a stream of patients coming to the casualty at short intervals and in critical conditions. Doctors dedicating their time and space to the patients with diligence and precision deserve appreciation. And rightfully so.

But the engagement that the attendant and the doctors exhibited and its aftermath bring forward two key points:

First, human emotions come in all forms and types. And they don’t come out unless someone or something nudges them. No matter how much we try to suppress what lies beneath the consciousness, it finds a way to surface. Both the doctors and the attendant (maybe) are a case in point.

Would-be doctors protested against the incident, demanding strict action against the attendant, better security provisions when on duty, and, most ironically, leaving the emergency ward to ghosts and manhandling journalists. Whether it would be to the taste of the majority, a chink of aggressiveness was clearly visible on their faces. Doesn’t it perplex (?) one to see that the rage that the future doctors exhibited while protesting runs parallel to the very anguish they abhor?

Was a peaceful sit-in not an option?

Second, to err is human, whether it is a doctor or average folks. There seems to be no possibility to meditate on the doctor’s passive conduct – out of burnout or otherwise - prior to the incident. Zooming in on the unfortunate incident doesn’t add up. Looking more closely at the minute details of it does. If, and only if, we want to prevent such occurrences in the future and materialize the smooth functioning of the patient-doctor relationship.

A GMC Srinagar administrator later denied the accusation of the emergency services being stopped during the protest – a claim challenged by the attendants at the scene. This contradiction highlights something fundamental: the truth is missing. Either the administrator is covering up or the attendants are exaggerating. In either case, clarity is needed. We must address the elephant in the room, expose it, and bring an end to the confusions, conflicts and institutional chaos.

For a patient, doctors are second to God. And one should have massive respect for them. What the attendant did was clearly unethical. But, at the same time, we have to take a moment and dissect and analyze this incident in minute detail – with honesty and balance.

We simply can’t afford such altercations in hospitals.

We need not favour or disfavour anyone. Not the doctor. Not the attendant. What matters is the whole picture. That would require examining both subjective accounts and objective evidence.