DOCTORS have emerged as one of the few groups supporting the controversial Government proposal to make patients pay more at public hospitals, a survey has revealed. The majority of respondents from the medical profession - about 65 per cent - also considers it viable for the Government to charge patients extra for different medical procedures. The preliminary findings on how doctors view the consultative document Towards Better Health, which centres on health funding, also shows the majority favouring a comprehensive waivers system so patients who cannot afford the higher charges will not be deprived of care. The findings of the 331 doctors' views comes as politicians and welfare organisations voice growing opposition to the medical blueprint. But Dr Leong Che-hung, the medical profession's representative in the Legislative Council, who conducted the poll, said he was not surprised at the outcome. He described it as ''interesting'' that about 65 per cent of the respondents favoured the percentage subsidy approach, meaning the health profession felt patients and not only the Government should contribute more. The proposed change would mean patients who now pay $43 a day for a general hospital ward bed, or two per cent of the real cost of $2,105, could be asked to pay $105 a day - five per cent of the operating cost. Another possible option is a charge of three per cent at $63. About 60 per cent of the respondents support itemised charging, which could also mean extra fees such as a hospital admission charge of possibly $100; a first-time registration fee of perhaps $50, plus drug charges for specialist clinics; and an accidentand emergency service charge. But Dr Leong argued the percentage subsidy approach does not necessarily mean an automatic rise in fees and charges. ''The public fear arises from misunderstanding. There is still much room for the Government to explain this concept, instead of keep arguing with the general public that this is not a means to raise medical fees,'' he said. Dr Leong said doctors who did not support the approach were mainly worried about the lack of a comprehensive waivers system. ''The proposal suggests those already on public assistance should be waived, implying those who are not would have to pay,'' he said.