JUST because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you. In addition to the very worrying quality-of-care concerns which have been highlighted by the recent cancer scandals, concerns which have caused agonies for thousands of women, another troubling issue is emerging in relation to these events, namely the official reaction to them.

In particular, there is a frightening willingness and enthusiasm on the part of the Government and Department of Health to resort to blatant intimidation of those health professionals who dare to go off message, and to bring sincerely held concerns into the public domain.

An early warning of things to come came when questions about aspects of cancer care at Barrington's Hospital were aired. It emerged that Dr Raj Gupta had alerted the Department of Health two years before. They did nothing, and their reaction to subsequent reports of their inaction was to suggest darkly that Dr Gupta himself had a case to answer, because he had not notified the Medical Council. Infuriatingly, the same self-exculpatory Pontius Pilatism was used to answer the recent revelation that concerns about equipment in Portlaoise had been relayed to the minister in 2005.

A similar excuse was offered when the sad details of Suzie Long's delayed diagnosis of cancer, due to a seven-month wait for a colonoscopy (bowel test), came to light. It was suggested to me by a Department of Health doctor that the fault lay, not with the system, which allowed seven-month delays, but with the doctors who didn't move her up the queue ahead of other patients, patients who themselves might have had undiagnosed cancers. He wondered if the doctors shouldn't face some censure. Incidentally, a leading gastroenterologist from the Midlands told me this week that his waiting list for the same test is still seven months.

In my own hospital, it is approximately five months. Every patient waiting for a colonoscopy potentially has bowel cancer. Waiting lists of five or seven months are unacceptable, and attempts by those, who have the power to resource the system appropriately, to shift the blame are reprehensible.

The ultimate example came last week -- a week in which the organisation which runs the health service announced that it didn't know which of its constituent hospitals were safe venues for cancer treatment, a week when it was revealed that all of the mammograms in an entire medium-sized hospital were being recalled and it again emerged that a concerned doctor had previously notified the minister about his worries.

When challenged in the Dail about the health service by Labour leader Eamonn Gilmore, who used quotes from Maurice Neligan and myself, the Taoiseach elected to play the men and not the ball, making outrageous comments about Mr Neligan and suggesting that my right to have an opinion on the health service was somehow questionable, given my large private practice. Well, despite my best efforts (I only do private practice on my own hospital campus), I do have a large private practice. I also have a large public practice. That is what happens when you have very few doctors in your country -- they see lots of patients. When nearly two-thirds of the population indicate their level of trust in the public system by taking out private insurance, your doctors will have large incomes.

What came next chilled me to the bone. When Mr Gilmore suggested that the Taoiseach's replies were casting aspersions on the reputations of doctors, Mr Ahern replied that he was very careful not to cast aspersions on anyone, and that, furthermore, he hadn't even used his briefing notes.

I, for one, would like to know what was in these briefing notes. Who were they about? Was it about doctors who have been caught up in the quality-of-care scandals, or was it about those who spoke up? Was public money spent compiling McCarthy-esque dossiers for his privileged use in the Dail chamber?

I intended to discuss this on the Late Late Show, when I was invited to participate in a discussion on the health service. I was then informed that a high-level decision had been made by RTE management to remove me from the programme in the interest of balance, as the HSE and the department had refused to participate.

In effect, they were able to censor me by proxy. This is an increasingly used and highly anti-democratic tactic, but one which can be fought effectively. If the government attempts to sabotage debate by preventing the formation of balanced panels, then proceed with all the unbalanced ones. They'll soon come round and start sending spokespeople.

Younger readers may not remember the bad old Haughey days, when internal opponents of his corrupt and intimidatory rule faced mysterious late night calls and threats on the nights before leadership challenges. Isn't it sad and ironic to think that one of the brave, principled young politicians who refused to cave in to intimidation then was Mary Harney. She was actually a heroine of mine.

Professor John Crown is a consultant oncologist