Beyond the Pacemaker Controversy: Rebuilding Trust in Healthcare

By Desk Editor Published on Jun 25, 2026

Javaid Jawad

“The real issue is not whether one diagnosis was right or wrong, but whether the healthcare system can restore the trust that allows patients to believe medical advice without fear, doubt, or suspicion.”

The recent pacemaker controversy at Government Medical College (GMC) Anantnag has dominated public discourse over the past few days. From social media platforms to community gatherings, people have been passionately debating the issue. Two distinct narratives have emerged, each claiming to represent the truth. While both perspectives may contain elements of reality, the controversy raises a more fundamental question: why do people so readily believe allegations of medical misconduct?

The answer perhaps lies not in the controversy itself but in the gradual erosion of public trust in a profession that has traditionally enjoyed immense respect. Medicine is often described as one of the noblest callings, and the overwhelming majority of doctors continue to serve society with dedication and integrity. Yet, recurring stories of questionable diagnoses, unnecessary procedures, and perceived commercialisation have created an environment where suspicion finds fertile ground.

If the medical fraternity wishes to rebuild public confidence, it must engage in honest introspection. Transparency, accountability, and a willingness to address concerns from within are essential. Public trust cannot be demanded; it must be earned and continuously reinforced.

My own experiences as a caregiver have shaped my views on this subject and underscored the importance of seeking a second opinion before making major medical decisions.

About eight years ago, I took my mother to a renowned eye specialist for treatment. After examining her, the doctor recommended surgery and estimated the cost at around ₹70,000. Concerned about the diagnosis, I sought another opinion from a doctor who had successfully treated a friend’s mother for a similar condition. After a thorough examination, the second doctor concluded that surgery was unnecessary. He even returned the consultation fee and advised only occasional medication whenever she experienced irritation in her eyes. Years later, my mother continues to manage well without surgery.

A similar episode occurred regarding her cardiac health. Two years ago, she was under the care of a well-known cardiologist in Srinagar. Following investigations costing nearly ₹15,000, she was advised to undergo immediate pacemaker implantation. Seeking reassurance, I consulted the Cardiology Department at SKIMS, where the recommendation was endorsed.

Yet I remained unconvinced. My mother was physically active and displayed none of the symptoms one would ordinarily associate with such an intervention. I therefore sought a third opinion from another reputed cardiologist. After reviewing her case, he inquired about her medication and learned that she was taking Revilol XL 40. According to him, the medication could influence the test results and should have been discontinued before conducting certain investigations.

He advised stopping the medicine and repeating the tests after fifteen days. We followed his recommendation. When the investigations were repeated, the results were normal. After reviewing the reports, the doctor concluded that neither a pacemaker nor any medication was required. In his assessment, the earlier abnormal findings were most likely influenced by the medication itself.

These experiences do not suggest that doctors are dishonest or that medical advice should be routinely distrusted. Rather, they highlight an important reality: medicine is not always an exact science, and professional opinions can differ. Diagnostic interpretations vary, clinical judgments differ, and even the most experienced practitioners can arrive at contrasting conclusions.

For patients and their families, the lesson is simple. Whenever a major surgery, costly procedure, or life-altering treatment is recommended, seeking a second opinion is not an act of distrust. It is an exercise in informed decision-making. A second opinion can either reinforce confidence in the original recommendation or reveal alternative approaches that may be equally effective and less invasive.

At a time when public confidence in healthcare is under strain, both patients and doctors have responsibilities. Patients must avoid rushing to conclusions based on rumours and social media narratives. Doctors, on their part, must uphold the highest standards of ethics, transparency, and patient communication.

Trust, once weakened, is difficult to restore. But by encouraging openness, accountability, and informed medical choices, it is possible to rebuild the bond between doctors and the communities they serve.

Author can be mailed at javaidjawad3200@gmail.com