The Responsibilities and Duties of Various Professional Organisations and Communities

Any professional organization must be more just, ethical, and dedicated to upholding the dignity of its profession.

Any deviation from this is desirable neither for any individual nor for any organization. In other words, professional ethics is an important issue; notable examples include ethics in the health sector and ethics in journalism.

No member of a particular profession or media worker, no matter how powerful he may be, can be involved in any activity that damages the dignity of his profession or is harmful or condemnable.

Nor should anyone, driven by arrogance or ego, express resentment or contempt toward others, or engage in overenthusiastic, excessive, or inappropriate behavior that may create dissatisfaction in the public mind.

On the other hand, no senior office-holder of any institution should suffer from self-conceit. Even a service recipient or any ordinary citizen must not be subjected to delay in receiving information or to rude, indecent, or insulting behavior.

If such conduct occurs, not only will the individual’s personal image be tarnished, but it will also create an atmosphere of disrespect and discomfort within the institution and organization.

In our society today, under the influence of power and authority, influential circles such as university vice-chancellors, pro-vice-chancellors, powerful figures in the media world, or senior officials of government forces often derive self-satisfaction from displaying disdain, contempt, or neglect toward ordinary people through the force of their authoritarian exercise, which can in no way be acceptable in a civilized society.

Likewise, it is undesirable for any senior physician or professor working in a hospital to engage in behavior that undermines the quality and dignity of his profession.

If such behavioral crises emerge among those responsible for running institutions, they will gradually turn organizations and institutions into inferior and garbage-like dumping grounds.

This article criticizes the management and service conditions of Dhaka Medical College Hospital and Bangladesh Medical College Hospital, attributing their problems to administrative mismanagement, weak leadership, negligence of duty, and misuse of authority.

It argues that a careless attitude toward public service has turned these important medical institutions into poorly functioning and unhygienic environments.

Patients are said to face severe inconvenience, especially long waiting times, during which their physical condition and awareness may deteriorate.

The text also highlights security concerns, claiming that opportunistic criminals take advantage of this vulnerable situation to steal money, valuables, and personal belongings from patients and attendants, raising serious questions about safety inside hospital premises.

The passage questions how such insecurity and disorder can exist even when high-ranking officials are assigned to oversee hospital administration and security. It further criticizes security personnel for allegedly prioritizing service to administrative heads rather than ensuring patient safety.

Similarly, departmental heads and senior officials are accused of showing little interest in monitoring service quality or patient care on a regular basis. A major concern raised is the absence of accountability and systematic evaluation.

There appears to be no consistent review of daily hospital performance, including the number of patients treated, the quality of care provided, or coordination among departments.

As a result, staff reportedly complete routine duties without proper oversight, while patient suffering goes unaddressed.

The overall message is a strong call for accountability, effective management, and a sense of civic responsibility within these healthcare institutions.

A recent controversy began after a senior journalist used a derogatory term for doctors during a live talk show, triggering strong reactions from medical organizations, including protests and possible legal action.

While many in the medical community condemned the remark as an insult to an entire profession, some members of the public supported it, citing personal experiences of mismanagement, negligence, and unethical behavior in parts of the healthcare system.

The incident has sparked a wider debate in Bangladesh about healthcare quality, professional ethics, public dissatisfaction, respect for professions, and the limits of free speech.

It raises two key questions: whether it is acceptable to insult an entire professional group, and whether any profession should be beyond criticism.

The discussion suggests that while no profession is above accountability, criticism must be distinguished from blanket insult.

Targeted criticism of specific individuals for corruption or negligence is justified, but labeling an entire profession with derogatory terms is unfair and harmful, as it also affects honest and dedicated professionals.

Many doctors in Bangladesh serve in difficult conditions, especially in rural areas, and played a crucial role during the COVID-19 pandemic, often risking their lives.

The issue highlights the need for balanced criticism that promotes accountability without creating social division or disrespecting entire professional groups.

Does that mean doctors should not be criticized? Certainly they should. In a democratic society, criticism is an indispensable process.

Public dissatisfaction regarding the healthcare sector in Bangladesh is not a new issue. The list of complaints from patients and their relatives is long.

Discussions have persisted for years regarding mistreatment of patients, unnecessary diagnostic tests, commission-based referrals, lack of adequate consultation time, excessive commercial attitudes, absence from government hospitals, and lack of accountability.

Many people believe that medical service is gradually transforming from a humanitarian profession into an expensive commercial sector.

Although these allegations do not apply to all physicians, certain real-life experiences have contributed to the formation of such perceptions within society.

Therefore, if the medical community merely protests against derogatory language while completely denying public grievances, the root of the problem will remain unaddressed.

In many sectors—education, journalism, politics, administration, law enforcement, and healthcare—there is a general reluctance to openly acknowledge internal weaknesses or failures.

Teachers often avoid discussing shortcomings in the education system, journalists hesitate to critique media flaws, politicians rarely admit mistakes, bureaucrats downplay administrative limitations, and police officers and physicians similarly resist public reflection on institutional problems.

As a result, a culture of honest self-assessment remains weak, preventing meaningful reform and improvement.

This feature argues that a society without self-criticism cannot truly reform itself. While it is incorrect to label an entire profession negatively, it is equally irresponsible to deny real problems within any system, including healthcare.

Mutual respect between professions is essential, but respect should not mean unquestioning praise, and criticism should not become insult. Instead, criticism should be evidence-based, logical, and aimed at reform rather than humiliation.

Professional groups must learn to respond to criticism not only with emotional defense or protest, but also with introspection and self-evaluation.

Only through balanced criticism and self-criticism, institutions can improve and ensure progress of society in a constructive direction.

The true dignity of any profession is not determined by its social power or influence; rather, it is determined by its accountability, its capacity for self-correction, and its ability to earn public trust. The language of insult may create temporary excitement, but it can never solve problems.

Solutions emerge through dialogue, self-criticism, and mutual respect. Perhaps this is the greatest lesson of the entire controversy.

If society is to move forward, we must become more responsible in our words, our conduct, and our capacity for self-criticism.

(The writer: Former Deputy Director General, Bangladesh Ansar and VDP; Rotary Learning Facilitator, Rotary Club,
Dhaka Elite)