Ms Salma Khalik's opinion piece (More clarity needed on polyclinic referrals and accessing subsidised care, Jan 16) highlights a worrying trend that besets healthcare workers - that of cynicism towards their actions when providing exemplary patient care.

She excoriated a hospital for offering private care to a subsidised patient referred by a polyclinic.

To her, one could safely presume that the patient would have wanted to continue with subsidised care, and that offering the patient a choice of doctor - and hence private care - was inappropriate.

Ms Khalik's interpretation led her to assume the worst in this scenario - that the hospital's agenda was to profit, and not the possibility that it was offering the patient the chance to reconsider how care should be provided.

If the hospital had assumed what Ms Khalik felt was common sense and not offered the patient a choice of doctor, would there then be a case made out of the hospital rushing to judge the patient's ability to afford other options of care and not discussing this with the patient?

Simply put, it is a classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The commentary led to other Forum writers echoing her sentiment that the underlying motive was to profit.

These comments do not help a healthcare sector already saddled with conventional care and emergent issues such as maintaining a sturdy digital infrastructure that upholds patient data security.

Tan Shian Ming (Dr)