Professionals subscribe to the credo that a person is best judged by his peers in the profession and that for this reason, one should be far more sensitive to the criticisms made by colleague than those made by lay people.

And so, I am distressed by the statement made by Dr. Avelino P. Aventura of the Philippine Heart Center of Asia: "With or without the support of the heart associations or other medical alliances in the country, the Heart Center is pushing through this symposium . . . " (Veritas, Feb. 10).

If Dr. Aventura rejected the opinions of his colleagues and the various professional associations in cardiology and medicine mainly on the basis of his superior competence, I might decry his arrogance but still endorse his stance since I am perfectly willing to grant him his superior competence.

But he rejects his colleague’s opinions on the grounds that the symposium is "in line with the mission of the Heart center."

He obviously considers the priorities of his organization to be far more important than his colleagues’ professional misgivings. This is not the attitude of a professional but the stance of a company man.

By taking the stance of a company man, Dr. Aventura is no better than the medically-trained person who becomes a detailman. Such a person may know which drugs are better than others, but no one would expect him to criticize a drug manufactured by his company.

A company man is not accorded professional courtesies as a matter of right; all he deserves are the normal courtesies we automatically extend to insurance agents, encyclopedia salesmen, taho peddlers, and other door-to-door tradespeople. They undoubtedly know a lot about what they are selling, but can’t be expected to tell us the full truth about them.

This is the way I have come to view Mr. Aventura.
 

CARLOTA SALVADOR