The defenders of Dr. Salvana

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

For fairness’ sake, we give space for the doctors who defended Dr. Edsel Salvana. Considering his stature he surely has a following in Bacolod. Whoever the defenders are is of no import; it is the defense of Salvana in reaction to my column that needs to be addressed.

Unless necessary, I exclude personalities but focus on action. As the forgiving Church maxim goes, “condemn sin and not the sinner.” I dealt not about Salvana and his persona but what he wrote that affects a larger community.

Let me just call them collectively as ABCD (Aggrieved Bacolod City Doctors). I use the plural though the reactor may be just one, others may share the same sentiments. Bacolod City, after all, employs 24 doctors and there are possibly other Salvana disciples and admirers among them. However, if Salvana’s defenders, one or all were courageous enough, I would prefer to have their names. That would be more exciting. We have heard some Bacolod doctors on the radio so we know their sentiments.

ABCD gripes that I do not know Salvana personally and yet, in the narrowed mind of ABCD, I was critical, slanderous even of Salvana. There was a subtle threat in that charge but for me, that goes with the job. That mentality only exposes an absence of credible defense.

ABCD extolled Salvana and enshrined him in the pantheon of martyrs by claiming that Salvana could have earned more but he stayed to serve the Filipino people. He therefore does not deserve criticism; he sacrificed for the country.

After looking at his credentials and positions in government, I doubt he is sacrificing. Anyway, that is ABCD’s definition and measure of sacrifice. Aye, how many would have loved that kind of sacrifice!

To repeat, ABCD says that I do not know Salvana personally, and yet I criticize him. Ergo, if I knew him personally especially his “sacrifices” for the country, I should not have criticized him. Faulty logic.

Let us deal with this defense. First, true, I don’t know him personally except what is posted about him on the internet. But, Salvana came out publicly with his assertion that HCQ does not work. That declaration is not dogma beyond question.

ABCD should learn how to distinguish the person and what he does. I did not criticize him because of what he is but what he wrote that endangers us and which I believe have fatal consequences. Is that a crime?

His position defending the ban on the use of HCQ assaulted the rights of the doctors to prescribe a medicine they believe is best for their patients. Should we remain silent at the suppression of a possible hope for a cure?

He might be well-intentioned, but should he not have defended the right of his fellow doctors, and his own oath, “to do no harm?” Of course, he probably believes that by suppressing the HCQ he was preventing a greater harm. But that is his opinion and not the objective fact. Why deny the other doctors? If Salvana refused to use HCQ for his patients that is his choice.

Secondly, Salvana is a public servant and not immune from public criticism. That goes with his employment. Nobody forced him to stay in the country rather than work elsewhere to be more compensated. We appreciate that patriotism, on the other hand, the office he holds does not clothe him with the mantle of inerrancy and freedom from censure and even contempt.

Thirdly, he came out into the public area of discussion by publishing his piece that this column, by right and duty, dissected.

He jumped into the pool, so ABCD, should not cry that their hero got wet. His article has a purpose – to discourage the use of HCQ and strengthen the government ban against HCQ. Since when have we lost the right to oppose?

There is a tricky principle called “negligence of foreseeability” that ABCD and Salvana surely know. I need not elaborate on this because they are aware and in fact desired the consequence of his defense of the ban against HCQ.

ABCD is concerned about Salvana’s reputation; we are concerned with basic rights and sacredness of human lives.

Anyway, they’re welcome to join the fray but must identify themselves.