Basic question to resolve Palace-SC rift
THE ROW between the Executive and judiciary is escalating. A dialogue between the heads of the two branches of government has been proposed, with Catholic priests offering to mediate.
The most relevant question is: “Why and how did the problem occur?” Finding the answer to this question will help prevent further conflicts among the three branches of government in the future. To let this rift drag on is to perpetuate an “unhealthy, lose-lose” situation, with the Filipino people losing the most.
May I offer my unsolicited suggestions to transform the “dialogue” into a healthy and productive forum.
1. Both parties must concede that the practice of law or politics, like medicine, is not an exact science. Such being the case, all parties’ opinions should be recognized, respected and given the benefit of the doubt, and assumed to have been articulated with the sincere intention to be just and fair to all parties concerned. There should be no prejudgments and paranoid presumptions. In law or politics, what is more important: the right of the individual or the concern of the state? Just like in a multiple-choice question, there can be several correct answers, but we must always choose the best one.
2. In the practice of medicine, we are predisposed to follow specific “practice guidelines” that are generally based on the vast pool of scientific data. It’s called evidence-based medicine or EBM. Each preferred recommendation is supported by the “power” of scientific evidence. The “lowest” power of evidence is that derived from consensus. Since the attending doctor has examined the patient and the framers of the guidelines (notwithstanding their unquestionable expertise in the field) never did, it is obvious which option should prevail. In law or politics does a majority of an expert body’s consensus on an individual’s right to treatment be the rule despite the opinions of experts who have evaluated the patient?
3. In the practice of medicine, the selected management of a patient is based on increased chance of survival, reduced or absence of complications, or cost-efficient improvement of quality of life. The doctor’s decision is not based on theoretical dictates of books. What are the performance measures in law or politics? Should it be simply based on the letter of the law or the likely outcome or impact of the decision? I suppose there are instances when the spirit of the law can take precedence over the letter of the law.
4. Practicing doctors or trainees are regularly audited by their peers in the academic institutions, hospitals, medical societies, etc. What is the audit system for justices, lawmakers and government executives to keep them on their toes?
Unless we can answer above questions, we will never get to answer why and how this conflict between the Executive and judiciary started in the first place.
—RAMON F. ABARQUEZ JR. MD,
EFACC, FPCP, FPCC, CSPSH,
academician, National Academy of Science and Technology; professor emeritus, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines, [email protected]
