At what point did doing a good deed become the basis for ridicule by a complete stranger? The reason I ask is that, for some time now, I have been both mystified and deeply irritated at the use of the term "do-gooder" as a term of abuse.

In recent years, on various occasions, those writing to newspapers or phoning into radio stations have derided various persons with whom they disagree as "do-gooders". Only recently I read someone describe the decidedly robust MP George Galloway as a "do-gooder", only to ludicrously apply the same sobriquet to Mr Galloway's arch enemy Tony Blair.

And so we find ourselves in the woeful position where a term defined in the dictionary as "a person supporting or working in favour of humanitarian causes", has become a slapdash label used to denigrate opponents for a multitude of sins, irrespective of whether it fits or is applicable.

Over the past few weeks there have been a number of real do-gooders in action all over the world stage. In New Orleans we have seen real evidence of do-gooding as both paid workers and volunteers have gone out to provide blankets, clothing, food and water to those left without safety, shelter or sustenance by Hurricane Katrina.

In the African country of Niger, aid workers bring relief to the starving, while, in Iraq, there remain the daily do-gooders who, in spite of the very real threat of death, turn up to work in a police uniform to carry out a public service, in defiance of the wrath of insurgents who, given half a chance, would blow these particular do-gooders to smithereens.

In America, Niger and Iraq people of different colours, backgrounds and occupations are daily doing good in places where either man or nature has created conditions so desperate as to be unbearable. Yet the actions they undertake are the very same which are mocked by the cynical and self-centred as "do goodery".

It is worth noting who it is the cynical are lining up with when they pour scorn upon the selflessness of those who would act to do good.

In New Orleans it is the looters and criminals who shoot at rescuers, in Niger it is the petty bureaucrats or businessmen who seek to exploit the starving and the famished, whilst in Iraq it is the ideologues of hate who pervert faith so as to kill their Islamic brothers and sisters in the street.

Perhaps the time has come to turn the tables on the name callers and to speak true of anyone who would use "do-gooder" as a term of abuse. "Rather a do-gooder than a cynical, self-centred, self-preserving, narrow minded hypocrite who would expect any public servant to turn up at their door at a moment's notice, yet is content to malign them in the meantime."

OK, so maybe that's a bit of a mouthful, but it's time to stop taking those who do good for granted and to stop this nonsensical term of abuse.