Full contribution
HON. P. D. SIBANDA: Thank you Mr. Speaker for allowing me to air my views to this motion. Like my colleagues have indicated, this is a critical motion that has been raised at the most appropriate time. The criticality of this motion is in the fact that there are social welfare consequences of the decision that was announced yesterday. It is monumental. It leads to serious disastrous consequences.
However, my analysis as I contribute to this motion will be a bit different. I want first to look at the participants of this whole source of the motion. Firstly, there is the poor ordinary man of this country who is meant to be a recipient of medical services who is now going to be affected, not because of their own act but because of the conduct of others. Like every Member has indicated, those that are contributing to Medical Aid Societies are doing so. Every month their monies are being deducted. They are playing their role. I leave out this participant.
The second participant is the Medical Aid Society itself. On my pay slip, it is indicating that the Medical Aid Society is getting my money every month but when I go to seek for services, I do not access those services. I am not so sure what is really wrong with Medical Aid Societies but I think I will try to make an analysis and point to where the problem lies. Then there are the doctors, those who have said we are withdrawing our services and we will provide them on condition of cash being advanced. There are employees. I sympathise with them as well. I do sympathise with doctors.
There is no way that service can be sustained unless if it receives money. I think we have been receiving complaints for a long time that Medical Aid Societies are not paying money to the doctors and those doctors are also Zimbabweans just like me and everyone else. They need to survive. They have families to take care of. Am I saying their actions are justified, not exactly? It is unethical. Did they really have an option? Should they have acted otherwise? How would they have acted? For a long time the doctors have asked Medical Aid Societies to own up and Medical Aid Societies are not owning up what they owe. Should we expect then the doctors to continue offering services when they are not getting anything in return? I think I sympathise with them.
As much as some of my colleagues where calling for punitive action to be taken against them, personally I do not agree. They are running a business that is meant to make them also to survive. We really need to understand them as well.
Finally, the other participant is the Government. The constitutional provisions that were read about the right to health, the participant which is expected to deliver that right or to satisfy that right, is the Executive. That is where the buck stops. When we look at these other three participants, that is Medical Aid Societies, the recipients of medical services and the doctors, they are all merely victims. When I am angry with the doctors, I am actually a victim who is angry against another victim.
Continued next page
(197 VIEWS)
