One major aspect of the primary health reform that has not been fully understood is the intention to encourage people to have one single doctor with whom they develop a relationship that goes beyond their medical needs.

Parliamentary Secretary Joe Cassar has repeatedly insisted that this is the main concept that has pushed the government into making yet another attempt to reform the primary health care services.

In the not so distant past, life in towns and villages "depended" on the services of the parish priest and the locality doctor. While there was only one parish priest, sometimes there were more than one general practitioner in the same locality. Both the priest and the doctors often offered assistance that went beyond the spiritual and medical needs.

As education improved, and people no longer heavily relied on priests and doctors, the distance between them and the Church on one hand, and between them and doctors gradually increased. The opening of polyclinics or health centres, which offered medical services free of charge, also led people to move away from having their own GP.

When the government launched the primary health care reform document in early December, one of the figures that stood out was that only 30 per cent of people could identify one doctor as their general practitioner. Although 75 per cent did visit private clinics, they went to different doctors.

The government wants to reverse the trend, for several reasons. It wants people, as much as possible, to have one doctor of their choice as the focal point of their medical needs. Building a relationship with one doctor is important, most of all, for the patient.

If the doctor and patient get to know each other well there is a much greater chance that any treatement given is more successful. A doctor who knows the medical history of his patients is more likely to give the best treatment required than some other doctor who is seeing a patient for the first time.

Secondly, having a GP of one's choice would enable patients to obtain an opinion of someone who knows them well before seeking specialized treatment, and only if they really need it. Too often, patients rush from one specialist to another thinking that they need some kind of treatment when, in actual fact, they would need another. Patients are not doctors, and they often misdiagnose themselves. A GP could point them in the right direction.

Let us not forget that general practitioners are themselves specialists in family medicine, and their training and experience is the best attention that patients can get for their day-to day needs.

Thirdly, having a computerized system would enable the doctors - with the permission of the patients - to understand their medical history better, even when hospital treatment was necessary.

With this system in place, and if people understand the idea that having one GP enables them to have better care of themselves, the workload in health centres and at Mater Dei Hospital would decrease. This will also obviously mean less cost for the government, and the money could be redirected towards improving the services that are offered in hospitals and centres - to people who really need it.

This "continuity of care" concept that the government is trying to pursue is beneficial from all aspects. Yet, it is apparent that the doctors are still unsure of its outcome. It is hoped that through discussion, the government and the doctors can some to an agreement which, after all, is in the best interests of the patients.