Sent to Straits Times Forum Page, 24 March 2012
Dr. Yik Keng Yeong had distorted my views quite unfairly in his letter "MediShield cover for birth defects: Seeking feedback not futile exercise", . Dr. Yik chose to challenge me on my statement about the futility of getting feedback from the public on covering birth defects under the Medishieldscheme. Clearly, this was not a major point in my earlier letter.
I mentioned "some people who do not face this risk" may object to the extension ofcoverage as it would add to their cost of living. I was referring to people who are unmarried or too old to have children. I did not use the words "no one is risk free" and do not wish to be quoted out of context.
Dr. Yik held a generous view that everyone would support extending the coverage. If this was the case, why did feel he felt that it was necessary for the Minister for Healthto get the views of the public on this matter?
I am not clear why Dr. Yik would want to allude to me as "passively believing in karma" or even to blame me for the "potential litigation" that may arise from a decision to cover birth defects - implying that this could be avoided through public consultation.