Don't resort to the "dead end, sacrificing a pawn" tactic.

(Baonghean) - When playing Chinese chess, if faced with a difficult move, and unsure which to make because any move might harm one's pieces or be detrimental to the position being set up, chess players often move the pawn, the least valuable piece on the board. They hope that, by chance, "even a pawn can bring success," and if lost, the damage is insignificant and has little impact on the game. Therefore, there is the proverb, "When in a difficult situation, sacrifice a pawn."

Illustration

This is a time-honored experience of chess players and has also become a guiding principle in life for people when faced with a "dilemma," especially those involved in politics. The reason for reiterating this common and familiar saying is that in recent days, several events have occurred where the handling of these situations has been calculated and considered according to this traditional principle.

First, a female nurse was terminated from her contract at K Hospital, or more accurately, fired, after a short clip was posted online showing a patient (possibly a family member) loudly accusing the nurse of extorting money. That's all the clip showed. No one witnessed the actual extortion by the medical staff. Therefore, only those two people know the truth. Besides, the incident happened quite a while ago and only recently came to light. As soon as the clip was discovered, the Minister of Health immediately ordered an investigation into the location where the incident occurred and the dismissal of the person involved in the extortion. Almost immediately, everything proceeded exactly as directed.

Public opinion, while some applaud the strict stance and decisive handling of the negative behavior and harassment of patients, others remain cautious and somewhat skeptical about the unusually swift and decisive resolution. This skepticism leads to suspicion: Was this action necessary to maintain the reputation of the medical profession and demonstrate a determination to clean up the ranks of doctors, who have been plagued by scandals in recent times? And were the hospitals forced to sacrifice themselves to protect their image and avoid public backlash? Therefore, a doctor at the Central Endocrinology Hospital bitterly recounted his experience on Facebook: “I don’t know how correct the Minister’s decision is, but I see the lives of medical staff still working for state-run hospitals as very precarious; they easily become scapegoats. Thinking back to what happened to me a few months ago still makes me tremble.”

At the end of the day, I was examining one of the last diabetic patients. Looking back at a prescription from a colleague who had seen the patient the previous month to check the insulin dosage, I saw it said: "Dosage can be found in the medical record." When I opened the patient's medical record, it said: "See printed prescription." When I asked the patient what dosage she was currently injecting, she said she didn't know (?). I was at a loss. Seeing that the patient was nearly 70 years old, with poor eyesight and drooping eyelids due to diabetic complications, I wanted to admit her to the hospital, but she refused. So I chose the easiest-to-use insulin pen and prescribed a relatively safe dosage, but she absolutely refused, insisting on the same medication she used before (the kind no longer covered by insurance). I advised her to get the medication and bring it back, promising to show her how to use it, but she wouldn't listen and stormed off, muttering: "You unethical doctor, you despicable healer..."

My colleagues and I were all left speechless and indignant. Luckily, she didn't call the Minister's hotline, otherwise, we might have been in big trouble.” Responding to comments, the doctor added: “What I want to say is that leaders need to think carefully when dealing with employees because some complaints aren't entirely accurate. For example, the patient in my story – if she had called the Minister, even if you weren't wrong, you would still have been sacrificed.”

However, this only raises public suspicion and doesn't definitively confirm that there was a deliberate "sacrificing of pawns" like the disciplinary action taken against officials in the "massacre" of trees in Hanoi. Clearly, when asked about this issue, the Deputy Head of the City Party Committee's Propaganda Department stated that the renovation and replacement of trees is a correct policy implemented according to the Capital's Master Plan. The city developed a plan for tree renovation and replacement in 2015, reported it to the Standing Committee of the City Party Committee for approval, and it was subsequently approved by a Decision of the City People's Committee. This means that the tree felling was planned and approved by the competent authorities.

Yet, when faced with fierce opposition from the people of Hanoi and the entire country, they immediately proceeded to review the personal responsibility of the Deputy Director of the Department of Construction directly in charge, as well as related agencies, organizations, and individuals. The head and deputy head of the department, and other officials and civil servants directly involved in the incident, were temporarily suspended from their duties. Seriously, they were only following the plan and fulfilling their assigned responsibilities, so why were they disciplined? If the action was wrong, then everyone who voted to approve the plan should be criticized and disciplined, not just a few people directly involved in its implementation.

Pointing out such inconsistencies is not intended to criticize or condemn anyone, but simply to emphasize that, in times of intense public pressure, it's easy to lose composure and resort to inappropriate "damage control" tactics, leading to rectification of one mistake with another. The best approach is to calmly reassess the situation, honestly admit fault if wrong, and then sincerely and proactively correct it. Don't try to shift blame onto others by resorting to underhanded tactics. That easily leads to others bearing the brunt of the blame and suffering for a lifetime. It's highly inadvisable!

Duy Huong