SUNDAY BYTES: The Damned – Always the Doctor?
When Accountability Matters, but Judgment Comes Too Soon Guilty or Not Guilty: Where Do We Balance Between an Investigation and Merciless Publicity?
Dr. Fiaz Maqbool Fazili
In recent days, public discourse around the alleged pacemaker implantation irregularities in Anantnag has generated intense debate, strong emotions, and widespread commentary. The matter is now under official investigation, and the government has deemed it important enough to order a departmental inquiry. Accountability in healthcare is essential, and any allegation involving patient care deserves careful scrutiny. No reasonable doctor would disagree with that.
Yet, alongside the legitimate demand for accountability, another troubling phenomenon has unfolded — the rapid criminalisation of an individual doctor and, by extension, the medical profession itself, long before the facts have been established.
A question therefore deserves reflection:
At what point does public interest become public persecution?
There is a painful reality about our times. Say something good about a doctor who saves a life, donates blood for a needy patient, stays awake through the night, visits an emergency at home, waives fees for the poor, or goes beyond duty to comfort a suffering family — scarcely anyone notices. Few share such stories. They rarely become headlines.
But add a pinch of suspicion, a dash of accusation, and generous amounts of sensationalism, and the story spreads like wildfire. Social media becomes prosecutor, judge, jury, and sometimes even executioner. Facts become secondary. Emotions take over. Public opinion hardens before evidence is examined.
The doctor is damned first and heard later.
My position is simple.
The law must take its course. No individual, regardless of status, position, or profession, is above the law. If wrongdoing has occurred, there must be accountability. If any clinician has violated established regulations, ethical standards, or institutional protocols, appropriate action must follow. Medicine is a profession where discipline, transparency, and integrity are indispensable.
However, justice must be fair, evidence-based, and free from prejudice.
An allegation is not proof.
An inquiry is not a conviction.
A suspension is not a punishment.
Yet public perception often interprets these distinctions differently.
The manner in which inquiry orders are leaked, circulated, discussed, and sensationalised on social media frequently creates an impression that guilt has already been established. The accused individual is subjected to public humiliation before being given a meaningful opportunity to present his side. Reputations built over decades can be damaged within hours.
This should concern all of us.
As someone who has advocated patient rights for decades, I firmly believe that patients and their families deserve answers. They deserve transparency. They deserve to know whether procedures performed on them were medically indicated, evidence-based, and in their best interests.
At the same time, fairness demands that healthcare professionals also receive due process.
Both principles can coexist.
The challenge in this particular case is that the allegations involve highly specialised areas of cardiac electrophysiology and pacing technologies. Unfortunately, many of those commenting publicly neither understand the technical aspects of these procedures nor the evolving scientific evidence surrounding them.
The result is predictable.
Complex medical questions are reduced to simplistic narratives.
Technical debates become emotional controversies.
Professional disagreements are portrayed as evidence of misconduct.
Several experienced electrophysiologists, including experts working outside the region, have suggested that an independent review by recognised specialists in the field would strengthen the credibility of any conclusions eventually reached. Such a suggestion should not be interpreted as a defence of any individual doctor. Rather, it is a call for scientific objectivity.
When allegations concern highly specialised procedures, expert evaluation becomes essential.
Truth should not merely be established.
It should be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Healthcare functions within laws, regulations, and institutional frameworks. While many clinicians often make extraordinary efforts to benefit patients, any arrangement outside approved systems requires scrutiny. If exceptions are accepted merely because they appear beneficial, it becomes difficult to prevent future misuse, conflicts of interest, exploitation, or even fraud.
That principle is important.
Yet another principle is equally important:
Good intentions should not automatically be interpreted as criminal intentions.
Most healthcare professionals enter medicine with a sincere desire to heal. The overwhelming majority follow the ethical dictum of “Do No Harm.” Many routinely make personal sacrifices to serve patients with limited resources and difficult circumstances.
I often reflect on a simple example.
When a doctor donates blood for a needy patient, nobody accuses him of violating boundaries.
When a physician rushes to a patient’s home during an emergency, nobody calls it misconduct.
When prescriptions are adjusted to reduce financial burden on poor patients, nobody sees criminal intent.
Compassion frequently requires flexibility.
That does not exempt anyone from regulations, but neither should every deviation automatically be interpreted as evidence of malice.
Intent, context, and outcome all matter.
Unfortunately, social media rarely accommodates nuance.
Today’s digital ecosystem rewards outrage rather than understanding. Every individual with a smartphone, microphone, camera, or social media page suddenly becomes an expert commentator. Speculation masquerades as analysis. Assumptions become conclusions.
In the process, a dangerous collateral damage occurs.
Trust between doctors and patients erodes.
And once trust is broken, restoring it becomes extraordinarily difficult.
A shattered glass can be repaired, but the cracks often remain visible.
Healthcare depends fundamentally upon trust. Every consultation, every surgery, every prescription, every procedure requires patients to place confidence in professionals who are trying to help them. Reckless public commentary can undermine this relationship far beyond the confines of a single case.
That is why I believe there should be restraint while investigations remain ongoing.
In many jurisdictions, media reporting on pending matters is guided by principles intended to protect both transparency and fairness. We may similarly need stronger safeguards against the premature circulation of inquiry documents and unverified allegations.
A temporary restraint on speculative commentary is not censorship.
It is protection of due process.
Let investigators investigate.
Let experts analyse evidence.
Let all concerned parties be heard.
Let conclusions emerge from facts rather than emotions.
Most importantly, patients deserve clarity and reassurance. If procedures were medically justified, patients should be reassured and their anxieties addressed. If wrongdoing is established, patients deserve honesty, accountability, and corrective action.
Living indefinitely with uncertainty can itself become a source of suffering for patients and families.
Justice must therefore serve multiple purposes simultaneously:
Accountability where wrongdoing is proven.
Protection of the innocent where allegations are unfounded.
Restoration of public trust.
Reassurance to affected patients.
Preservation of confidence in healthcare institutions.
The Holy Qur’an offers timeless guidance on this matter. In Surah An-Nisa (4:135), believers are instructed to stand firmly for justice, even when truth may affect those close to them. Justice must rise above friendships, affiliations, loyalties, prejudices, and public pressure.
That principle remains as relevant today as ever.
Neither blind defence nor blind condemnation serves society.
What serves society is truth.
What serves patients is truth.
What serves doctors is truth.
What serves institutions is truth.
Let the inquiry proceed independently, professionally, and transparently.
Let competent experts examine the evidence.
Let all sides be heard.
Let conclusions be based on facts rather than headlines.
And until the investigation is complete, let us resist the temptation to become advocates, judges, juries, and executioners.
The doctor may ultimately be found innocent.
The doctor may ultimately be found guilty but till then let
due process take its course. Let not accused becomes criminal Before Unsupervised Loose Public Verdict that Way Allowee Free for All especially where and
when accountability Matters, and a well qualified experienced Professional approaches or management differs , wait for final conclusion and allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to be professional auditor and judge but Judgment Comes Too Soon.
But until that determination is made through due process, fairness demands one simple principle:
Let no person be damned before the truth is known.
Tail Piece
Many doctors locally, nationally, and internationally—especially senior cardiologists—along with senior citizens and responsible citizens from the USA to KSA, have emphasized that medicine is not a science of absolutes and cannot be judged solely through administrative packages or reimbursement manuals. A procedure not covered under PMJAY does not automatically mean it was unnecessary.
They stress that medical decisions must be evaluated by qualified experts, particularly in highly specialized fields such as cardiology and electrophysiology. Allegations should be investigated fairly, transparently, and scientifically, but medical judgment must be assessed by experts—not by social media narratives, package guidelines, or political interests.
Amid the GMC Anantnag Cath Lab controversy, there is a growing demand for an independent review by senior cardiology and electrophysiology specialists from reputed institutions. Patients and residents have highlighted the vital role of the Cath Lab in providing life-saving cardiac care across South Kashmir and have urged that services continue uninterrupted while the matter is examined.
Many have also cautioned against using the issue for political point-scoring or targeting respected professionals and public figures. If wrongdoing is proven, accountability must follow; if not, reputations built through years of service must be protected.
The consensus is clear: let independent experts determine the facts, ensure due process, safeguard patient care, and avoid sacrificing a noble profession for sensationalism or political mileage. Justice must be evidence-based, balanced, and guided by medical science rather than public speculation.”
(STRAIGHT TALK COMMUNICATIONS EXCLUSIVE. The Author is Clinical Auditor and Advocate of Patient & Family Rights)
