"It's ego versus ethics for this young and promising physician."
"It's ego versus ethics for this young and promising physician."
Doctors face ethical dilemmas on a daily basis. Decisions like resuscitating a patient, prescribing a futile treatment or discontinuing a curative treatment in order to respect the family’s decision, and performing a procedure that is not fully medically warranted are among the things that disturb their sleep—that is, if they even have time for that.
Apart from the dilemmas they face on the field, some choose to stir some trivial problems that put the profession in question, as disappointing as that may sound.
Most recently, melodramatic reports have surfaced in the medical industry about a doctor who has been aiming his guns at the institution that has given him the opportunities to stand where he is right now. In between attending to patients, he had the time to stir some allegations on the toxic and poor working environment of the world-class hospital.
An insider from the medical community shared that the false rumors stemmed from failed expectations of a promotion. This young doctor already had a reputable position in the hospital but wanted more than what he had. He claimed he was sure to clinch his coveted position in executive management, but the promotion was given to another doctor. Many in the medical community say that he exhibited in many instances that proved he wasn’t deserving of the position—swearing at hospital employees, engaging in inappropriate relationships with nurses, demonstrating instances of incompetence as he relied on his peers for advice.
The young doctor’s dilemma is now ego versus ethics.
My friends who are HR professionals always say it is not wise to burn bridges, especially if you are still young and have a long way to go.
***
The question remains.
While we welcome the pronouncement of the Department of Energy to revisit and re-assess the operating agreement entered into by the Philippine Electricity Market Corporation, a government-owned and -controlled corporation regarding the wholesale electricity spot market, the fact remains it entered in to an agreement with a four-month-old, P7,000-company, whose capital is not even enough to put up a food cart.
This matter was brought into the open by Puwersa ng Bayaning Atleta Rep. Jericho “Koko” Nograles who welcomed the DoE’s decision to review the questionable deal saying it could shed light on how and why a 7,000-peso company like the Independent Electricity Market Operator of the Philippines, Inc. was able to clinch a contract to manage the country’s wholesale electricity spot market without any competitive bidding, in full disregard of existing laws against graft and corruption.
“I welcome the decision of the DoE to finally step in and look into this dubious deal with IEMOP. The Philippines has one of the highest electric rates in Asia and it’s really revolting to realize that part of the money that we pay for electricity goes to a company with a capital that is not even enough to build a food cart business, and now they are collecting more than P1.2 billion a year,” Nograles said.
According to Nograles, the PEMC and the people behind its deal with IEMOP usurped the power of the President of the Republic of the Philippines by allowing the transfer of government-owned assets to a private company without his approval.
The said act, Nograles said, might constitute a violation of Republic Act 10149 or the GOCC Governance Act of 2011 which requires that any GOCC like PEMC must first seek endorsement from the Governance Commission for Government-Owned and -Controlled Corporations and thereafter the president’s approval, before transferring any asset or function to any Private entity like IEMOP.
As such, this corner agrees with Nograles that the claim of National Transmission Corporation Spokesperson Andres De Jesus that the PEMC-IEMOP deal was “above board,” as rather absurd, ergo, unacceptable.
Just how can de Jesus conveniently set aside so many Republic Acts that have been violated by the transfer of market operations from a GOCC to a private entity?
And then here comes IEMOP’s statement claiming they are the only qualified institution in the land.
How in the world can they make that claim when Rule IX Section 6(a) of the IRR of the EPIRA law is very specific on the qualification for an independent market operator which states that it should be financially and technically capable, with proven experience and expertise of not less than two years as a leading independent market operator of similar or larger size electricity market?
At four months old, with a paid-up capital of only P7,000, they have the gall to declare they are the only institution qualified?
Laway na nga lang ang puhunan, ginagawa pa tayong tanga.